Tolling Of Statute Of Limitations

2,208 Florida cases classified under this topic, plus 1,245 listed through its narrower topics · sorted by citation count · see the citation graph · browse and sort

• Boyd v. Ferdinand F. Becker, M.D.
  627 So. 2d 481· Fla.· 1993-11-04 ·cited 56×
  The Florida Supreme Court resolved a conflict in the medical malpractice statute of limitations between two subsections of section 766.106(3)—one measuring the 90-day presuit screening period from when notice is mailed and the other from when notice is received. The Court held th
• Adolph Kizas v. Webster
  707 F.2d 524· D.C. Cir.· 1983-04-26 ·cited 56×·via Equitable Tolling
  The court held that federal employees do not possess vested property rights in a former 'special preference' for promotion, and that Title VII is the exclusive remedy for federal employment discrimination claims, requiring exhaustion of administrative remedies.
• State v. West
  378 So. 2d 1220· Fla.· 1979-12-20 ·cited 56×
  The Florida Supreme Court held that a four-year statute of limitations on paternity actions unconstitutionally discriminates against illegitimate children in violation of equal protection guarantees. The court reversed the trial court's dismissal of the Department of Health and R
• Leake v. Univ. OF Cincinnati
  605 F.2d 255· 6th Cir.· 1979-09-04 ·cited 56×·via Equitable Tolling
  The court held that the 180-day time limit for filing a Title VII claim with the EEOC was equitably tolled due to the university's assurances during negotiations that it would not assert a statute of limitations defense.
• Sledge v. J. P. Stevens & Co., Inc.
  585 F.2d 625· 4th Cir.· 1978-10-04 ·cited 56×
  The dismissal of individual claims does not preclude class action relief, and a prima facie case of class-wide discrimination can be established by statistical evidence and neutral practices with discriminatory impact, shifting the burden to the employer to rebut. However, a bona
• Harris v. Walgreen's Distrib. Ctr.
  456 F.2d 588· 6th Cir.· 1972-02-10 ·cited 56×
  The court held that while the denial of appointed counsel was not an abuse of discretion, the dismissal of the amended petition based on the 30-day filing limit was erroneous because the motion for counsel tolled the statute.
• Goodman v. City Prods. Corp.
  425 F.2d 702· 6th Cir.· 1970-05-14 ·cited 56×·via Equitable Tolling
  The court held that the 30-day period to file a lawsuit after receiving notice from the EEOC is a mandatory jurisdictional prerequisite and not subject to equitable extension by the courts.
• Kan. City v. Fed. Pac. Elec. Co.
  310 F.2d 271· 8th Cir.· 1962-11-06 ·cited 56×
  The court held that the federal doctrine of fraudulent concealment tolls the four-year statute of limitations under § 4B of the Clayton Act, even when the cause of action accrued before the statute's enactment.
• Eisler v. Stritzler
  535 F.2d 148· 1st Cir.· 1976-05-14 ·cited 55×
  The court held that subject matter jurisdiction can be challenged at any time, even after admitting diversity, and that a hearing is required to determine damages after a default judgment.
• Short v. Belleville Shoe Mfg. Co.
  908 F.2d 1385· 7th Cir.· 1990-07-30 ·cited 54×·via Equitable Tolling
  The court, in a concurring opinion, expresses reservations about the principle of borrowing limitation periods from one statute for use with another that lacks its own.
• Smith v. Gen. Motors Corp.
  747 F.2d 372· 6th Cir.· 1984-11-02 ·cited 54×
  The court should apply DelCostello prospectively only, not retroactively.
• Oaxaca v. Egger L. Roscoe
  641 F.2d 386· 5th Cir.· 1981-04-03 ·cited 54×·via Equitable Tolling
  Failure to provide timely notice to an EEO counselor does not deprive the court of subject matter jurisdiction, but instead raises issues that may be subject to equitable tolling or waiver.
• Proudfoot Consulting Co. v. Gordon
  576 F.3d 1223· 11th Cir.· 2009-07-30 ·cited 53×·via Tolling Provisions
  Proudfoot Consulting Company sued former employee Derrick Gordon for breaching restrictive covenants in his employment agreement after he joined Highland, a direct competitor, in June 2006. The district court found all restrictive covenants enforceable under Florida law, granted
• Bonds v. The Coca-Cola Co.
  806 F.2d 1324· 7th Cir.· 1986-12-03 ·cited 53×·via Equitable Tolling
  A hybrid § 301 claim accrues on the date of the arbitration decision, and the court will not consider tolling arguments not adequately preserved or developed in the appellate brief.
• Wood v. Santa Barbara Chamber OF Commerce, Inc.
  705 F.2d 1515· 9th Cir.· 1983-05-20 ·cited 53×
  The court held that the dismissal of claims was proper, and the injunction against relitigation was appropriate, though modified to clarify its scope.
• Saltz v. Lehman
  672 F.2d 207· D.C. Cir.· 1982-03-09 ·cited 53×·via Equitable Tolling
  The court held that the timely-filing requirement for Title VII claims is subject to waiver, estoppel, and equitable tolling, but the appellant failed to plead or prove sufficient grounds for equitable tolling.
• Hilario Molinar v. United States
  515 F.2d 246· 5th Cir.· 1975-06-30 ·cited 53×
  The court held that the plaintiff's initial letter, which included attached bills totaling a specific amount, constituted a sufficient written claim to toll the statute of limitations under the Tort Claims Act.
• Whittaker v. Whittaker Corp.
  639 F.2d 516· 9th Cir.· 1981-02-12 ·cited 52×
  The court held that a party's control over another's securities and unfettered ability to use the proceeds for their own benefit constitutes 'profit realized by him' under § 16(b), affirming liability. However, the court reversed and remanded on the issue of the statute of limita
• Gates v. Georgia-Pacific Corp.
  492 F.2d 292· 9th Cir.· 1974-02-22 ·cited 52×·via Equitable Tolling
  The court held that the plaintiff established a prima facie case of racial discrimination and the defendant failed to demonstrate a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for not hiring her, affirming the lower court's judgment.
• NEY v. State OF Cal.
  439 F.2d 1285· 9th Cir.· 1971-03-25 ·cited 52×
• United Contractors v. The United States
  368 F.2d 585· Ct. Cl.· 1966-10-14 ·cited 52×
  The court held that the statute of limitations was tolled during the administrative process and that the contractor encountered a changed condition due to subsurface water, entitling them to an equitable adjustment.
• The Crummer Co. & R. E. Crammer & Co. v. du Pont
  223 F.2d 238· 5th Cir.· 1955-05-10 ·cited 52×
  The court held that the amended complaint did not sufficiently allege fraudulent concealment to toll the statute of limitations, but reversed the dismissal and remanded for a trial on that issue, finding that the amended complaint did state facts sufficient to toll the statute fo
• Boyd v. United States Postal Serv.
  752 F.2d 410· 9th Cir.· 1985-01-22 ·cited 51×·via Equitable Tolling
  The court held that claims of employment discrimination against the Postal Service based on handicap are exclusively governed by Section 501 of the Rehabilitation Act, which requires exhaustion of administrative remedies, and that the appellant failed to exhaust these remedies in
• Ramsey v. Culpepper
  738 F.2d 1092· 10th Cir.· 1984-07-05 ·cited 51×·via Equitable Tolling
  The court held that the trial court did not err in submitting the statute of limitations issue to the jury, admitting evidence of the defendant's financial condition, allowing rebuttal argument on punitive damages, or admitting expert testimony, and affirmed the judgment.
• Allstate Ins. Co. v. Metro. Dade Cnty.
  436 So. 2d 976· Fla. 3d DCA· 1983-08-02 ·cited 51×
  Allstate Insurance Company appealed a summary judgment dismissing its subrogation claim against Metropolitan Dade County on statute of limitations grounds. The Florida District Court of Appeal affirmed, holding that in contractual subrogation actions, the statute of limitations b
• Almengor v. Dade Cnty.
  359 So. 2d 892· Fla. 3d DCA· 1978-05-30 ·cited 51×
  The court held that genuine issues of material fact exist regarding whether the plaintiff was put on notice of her child's injury more than four years prior to filing suit, thus precluding summary judgment.
• Dove v. Codesco
  569 F.2d 807· 4th Cir.· 1978-01-18 ·cited 51×
  The court held that dismissal of a case for an attorney's failure to attend a pretrial conference, without a clear record of delay or contumacious conduct by the plaintiff, is an abuse of discretion and that lesser sanctions should be imposed.
• Inda v. United AIR Lines, Inc.
  565 F.2d 554· 9th Cir.· 1977-11-28 ·cited 51×
  The court held that while Inda's EEOC charge was timely filed under the 1972 amendments, Moritz's denial of re-employment constituted a separate violation allowing her charge to be considered timely. The order denying class action status was vacated for lack of specificity.
• Romasanta v. United Airlines, Inc.
  537 F.2d 915· 7th Cir.· 1976-07-01 ·cited 51×
  The denial of a motion to intervene as untimely was not an abuse of discretion, as the petitioner delayed unreasonably in seeking to join the litigation.
• Montalvo v. Tower Life Bldg. & Tower Life Ins. Co.
  426 F.2d 1135· 5th Cir.· 1970-04-21 ·cited 51×
  The court held that the building employees were covered by the Fair Labor Standards Act's enterprise provisions and that the statute of limitations was tolled by the timely filing of an amended complaint naming the correct party.
• Owens v. White
  380 F.2d 310· 9th Cir.· 1967-06-30 ·cited 51×
  The dissenting judge argues that the discovery rule should apply to negligent diagnosis cases, and the question of when a claim accrues should be a factual determination for the trier of fact.
• Brown v. United States
  353 F.2d 578· 9th Cir.· 1965-11-16 ·cited 51×
  The court held that the appellants' claims under the Federal Tort Claims Act were barred by the two-year limitations period because the parents discovered, or should have discovered, the alleged malpractice more than two years before filing suit.
• Outler v. United States
  485 F.3d 1273· 11th Cir.· 2007-05-11 ·cited 50×·via Equitable Tolling
  The dissenting judge believes that the petitioner is entitled to equitable tolling because his petition was made untimely by the district court's improper, sua sponte recharacterization of his motion, which constituted an extraordinary circumstance beyond his control. The judge a
• Janies Barron, M.D. v. Shapiro
  565 So. 2d 1319· Fla.· 1990-06-14 ·cited 50×
  The Florida Supreme Court held that the statute of limitations in medical malpractice cases begins to run when the plaintiff knew or should have known of either the injury or the negligent act, not when the plaintiff discovered the specific negligent cause. The Court quashed a di
• Aitchison v. Raffiani
  708 F.2d 96· 3d Cir.· 1983-05-13 ·cited 50×
  Members of a borough council, the mayor, and the borough attorney are entitled to absolute immunity for acts done in a legislative capacity, and the appropriate statute of limitations for suits against a municipality and its office holders in their official capacities is the stat
• Vaughn v. Teledyne, Inc.
  628 F.2d 1214· 9th Cir.· 1980-09-17 ·cited 50×
  The court held that summary judgment was appropriate because appellants failed to raise genuine issues of material fact regarding securities law violations, fraud, or breach of fiduciary duty, and the claims were largely barred by the statute of limitations.
• Isadore Goldman v. Sears
  607 F.2d 1014· 1st Cir.· 1979-10-25 ·cited 50×
  The court held that the plaintiff's employment discrimination claims were time-barred because he failed to file charges with the appropriate agencies within the statutory 180-day period, and the allegations did not establish a continuing violation.
• Charlier v. S. C. Johnson & SON, Inc.
  556 F.2d 761· 5th Cir.· 1977-07-29 ·cited 50×
  The court held that an employer's posting of an ADEA notice in a regional office may be insufficient to provide constructive notice to employees working remotely, and the case must be remanded to determine if the notice was adequate for each plaintiff and when they acquired actua
• Willmar Poultry Co. v. Morton-Norwich Prods., Inc.
  520 F.2d 289· 8th Cir.· 1975-07-17 ·cited 50×
  The court held that summary judgment was appropriate even before discovery when the defense is the statute of limitations and the opposing party fails to demonstrate a need for discovery.
• Dodd v. United States
  365 F.3d 1273· 11th Cir.· 2004-04-16 ·cited 49×·via Equitable Tolling
  Michael Donald Dodd, a federal prisoner convicted of engaging in a continuing criminal enterprise (CCE) and other drug offenses, appealed the dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 petition challenging his conviction on Sixth Amendment and Due Process grounds based on Richardson v. Un
• Hankey v. Susan Yarian, M.D.
  755 So. 2d 93· Fla.· 2000-03-16 ·cited 49×·via Suspension Of Statute Of Limitations
  The Florida Supreme Court resolved a conflict between district courts regarding the calculation of medical malpractice statutory limitations periods. The Court held that the ninety-day "tolling" period under section 766.106(4) suspends (rather than merely bars) the running of the
• Armstrong v. Clovis McALPIN
  699 F.2d 79· 2d Cir.· 1983-01-24 ·cited 49×
  The court held that the statute of limitations barred most claims because shareholders knew or should have known of the fraud with reasonable diligence, and that a breach of fiduciary duty alone does not violate federal securities laws.
• Witherow v. The Firestone Tire & Rubber Co.
  530 F.2d 160· 3d Cir.· 1976-01-26 ·cited 49×
  A federal court cannot cure defective service of process on removal if the action was time-barred in state court, as removal jurisdiction is derivative and cannot revive a legally dead claim.
• Scarborough v. Atl. Coast Line R. Co.
  178 F.2d 253· 4th Cir.· 1949-12-03 ·cited 49×
  The court held that the Federal Employers' Liability Act's statute of limitations, even if substantive, can be tolled by the defendant's fraudulent conduct that induces the plaintiff to delay filing suit.
• The Franklin Life Ins. Co. v. Tharpe
  130 Fla. 546· Fla.· 1938-01-07 ·cited 49×
  Franklin Life Insurance Company appealed a chancery court decree awarding Virginia Tharpe, widow and beneficiary, $3,000 plus attorney's fees on a life insurance policy issued to her deceased husband. The central issue was whether the insured's failure to provide proof of total a
• Arce v. Garcia
  434 F.3d 1254· 11th Cir.· 2006-01-04 ·cited 48×·via Equitable Tolling
  Three Salvadoran torture victims sued two former military leaders under the Torture Victim Protection Act and Alien Tort Claims Act for torture allegedly inflicted during El Salvador's civil war (1979–1983). The defendants argued the statute of limitations barred the claims, but
• Totura & Co., Inc. v. Williams
  754 So. 2d 671· Fla.· 2000-02-17 ·cited 48×
  The Florida Supreme Court consolidated two cases presenting conflicts about whether the 120-day service requirement in Rule 1.070(j) runs from filing a motion to amend or from entry of an order granting the motion, and whether a statute of limitations bars a claim when the motion
• Hohri v. United States
  782 F.2d 227· D.C. Cir.· 1986-01-21 ·cited 48×·via Equitable Tolling
  The court held that it has appellate jurisdiction over the case and that the Tucker Act waives sovereign immunity for Takings Clause and contract claims, but not for other monetary claims.
• McKNIGHT v. United States Steel Corp.
  726 F.2d 333· 7th Cir.· 1984-01-19 ·cited 48×·via Equitable Tolling
  The court held that a Rule 60(b) motion cannot be used to correct alleged errors of law made by the district court in the underlying judgment, and that a change in the law after judgment does not, by itself, justify relief under Rule 60(b).
• Keating v. Hon. Hugh Carey
  706 F.2d 377· 2d Cir.· 1983-04-18 ·cited 48×
  The court held that the plaintiff's complaint stated a cause of action under 42 U.S.C. § 1985(2) and (3), extending protection to political affiliation.