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

• Batista v. Publix Supermarkets, Inc.
  993 So. 2d 570· Fla. 1st DCA· 2008-10-22 ·cited 3×
  In this workers' compensation appeal, the Florida District Court of Appeal reversed the JCC's finding that a hearing was inadequately noticed, holding that proper service was established by certificates of service and the employer/carrier failed to rebut the presumption of receip
• DAY v. State
  977 So. 2d 664· Fla. 5th DCA· 2008-02-22 ·cited 3×·via Tolling Provisions
  Robert Day, former Property Appraiser of Osceola County, appealed his convictions for grand theft and misdemeanor violations of election law for using county employees for personal work and campaign purposes. The court affirmed the grand theft convictions but reversed the misdeme
• Phynerrian Q. Manning v. Tunnell
  943 So. 2d 1018· Fla. 1st DCA· 2006-12-18 ·cited 3×·via Equitable Tolling
  Manning appealed the dismissal of his civil rights and false imprisonment complaint against Bay County and Corrections Corporation of America (CCA). The court affirmed the dismissal, finding that Manning waived his equitable tolling argument by failing to raise it before the tria
• Thomas v. McDonough
  2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 68770· M.D. Fla.· 2006-09-25 ·cited 3×·via Equitable Tolling
  The court held that attorney negligence or miscalculation does not constitute extraordinary circumstances for equitable tolling of the one-year federal habeas limitations period, and petitioners are responsible for timely filing.
• Rice v. Reedy Creek Improvement Dist. & Unisource Administrators, Inc.
  924 So. 2d 882· Fla. 1st DCA· 2006-03-03 ·cited 3×
  In a workers' compensation appeal, the court addressed whether a claimant's petitions for benefits were barred by the statute of limitations. The court reversed in part and affirmed in part, holding that because at least one petition regarding the April 3, 2000 accident remained
• The Cadle Co. v. McCARTHA
  920 So. 2d 144· Fla. 5th DCA· 2006-02-03 ·cited 3×
  The court held that the plaintiff failed to provide sufficient evidence to establish numerosity, a prerequisite for class certification.
• Cora Health Servs., Inc. v. Steinbronn
  867 So. 2d 587· Fla. 5th DCA· 2004-03-05 ·cited 3×
  The Florida District Court of Appeal, Fifth District, denied CORA Health Services' petition for certiorari, upholding the trial court's denial of CORA's motion for summary judgment. The court found that the plaintiff's pre-suit notice for medical malpractice was timely served, ev
• Cannon v. Lindsey
  243 F. Supp. 2d 1339· M.D. Fla.· 2003-01-14 ·cited 3×
  The court held that the defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity at the motion to dismiss stage because the plaintiff adequately pleaded a constitutional violation of a clearly established right, and the statute of limitations issue is not ripe for resolution.
• Sellers v. Miami-Dade Cnty. Sch. Bd.
  788 So. 2d 1086· Fla. 3d DCA· 2001-06-13 ·cited 3×
  Kenneth and Sylvia Sellers appealed the dismissal of their negligence lawsuit against Miami-Dade County School Board for an injury Kenneth sustained in 1996. The court affirmed the dismissal because the Sellers failed to provide timely notice of their claim as required by Florida
• Greene v. Loewenstein, Inc.
  99 F. Supp. 2d 1373· S.D. Fla.· 2000-04-27 ·cited 3×·via Equitable Tolling
  The court held that the plaintiff's age discrimination claims failed because the transfer was untimely under the ADEA and not an adverse employment action under the FCRA, and his resignation did not constitute a constructive discharge.
• Claims Mgmt., Inc. v. Philip
  746 So. 2d 1180· Fla. 1st DCA· 1999-12-08 ·cited 3×
  The court reviewed a non-final order regarding the statute of limitations for workers' compensation benefits and reversed the judge of compensation claims' determination that the claimant's claim was not barred.
• Jancyn Mfg. Corp. v. State
  742 So. 2d 473· Fla. 1st DCA· 1999-09-22 ·cited 3×·via Equitable Tolling
  Jancyn Manufacturing Corporation appealed the Florida Department of Health's denial of an administrative hearing, arguing that the deadline for filing a petition should have been equitably tolled due to informal negotiations between the parties. The court affirmed the Department'
• Hoepner & Assocs., Inc. v. Stewart Gilman Co., Inc.
  648 So. 2d 854· Fla. 5th DCA· 1995-01-20 ·cited 3×
  The recording of an amended construction lien does not toll the one-year statutory period for filing a foreclosure action, which begins from the date of the original lien recording.
• United States v. Gispert
  864 F. Supp. 1193· S.D. Fla.· 1994-02-17 ·cited 3×
  A withheld adjudication of guilt, followed by successful completion of probation, does not constitute a 'conviction' for the purposes of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) under Florida law, if the firearm possession occurred after probation termination.
• Cardenas v. Wayne L. Godbold, M.D.
  625 So. 2d 98· Fla. 5th DCA· 1993-10-08 ·cited 3×
  This medical malpractice appeal addresses when the statute of limitations begins to run for claims involving injuries that could result from either medical negligence or natural causes. The court reversed summary judgment against parents of a child who suffered permanent brain da
• Moore v. State OF Ind.
  999 F.2d 1125· 7th Cir.· 1993-07-20 ·cited 3×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the plaintiff's motion for leave to amend his complaint because the proposed amendments would be futile.
• United States v. O'Bryant
  998 F.2d 21· 1st Cir.· 1993-06-29 ·cited 3×
  A superseding indictment relates back to the original indictment for statute of limitations purposes if it neither materially broadens nor substantially amends the charges against the defendant.
• United States v. DOS Cabezas Corp.
  995 F.2d 1486· 9th Cir.· 1993-06-21 ·cited 3×
  A suit to recover a deficiency debt after foreclosure is an action for money damages founded upon a contract, subject to the six-year limitations period under 28 U.S.C. § 2415(a). The automatic bankruptcy stay does not toll the limitations period for actions against non-debtor co
• Brown v. MRS Mfg. Co.
  617 So. 2d 758· Fla. 4th DCA· 1993-04-21 ·cited 3×
  Patricia Brown sought to recover for her son's death from a tractor manufacturer defect, but a bankruptcy stay prevented her from suing until after Florida's two-year wrongful death limitations period appeared to have expired. The court held that Florida's statute of limitations
• de Casenave v. United States
  991 F.2d 11· 1st Cir.· 1993-04-20 ·cited 3×·via Equitable Tolling
  The court held that the plaintiffs' FTCA claim was time-barred because they failed to file suit within the six-month limitations period after the agency mailed notice of denial, and equitable tolling was not warranted due to their lack of due diligence.
• Doe v. Cutter Biological
  813 F. Supp. 1547· M.D. Fla.· 1993-02-19 ·cited 3×
  The court held that the plaintiff's claims were time-barred under Florida's four-year statute of limitations because the plaintiff knew or should have known of his injury (HIV infection) by October 1985, more than four years before filing suit.
• Victor Foods, Inc. v. Crossroads Econ. Dev. OF ST. Charles Cnty., Inc.
  977 F.2d 1224· 8th Cir.· 1992-09-24 ·cited 3×
  The court held that the district court correctly dismissed claims against the SBA due to the expired statute of limitations and dismissed claims against other defendants for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
• Gomes v. Avco Corp. & Local 1010, United Auto., Aerospace & Agric. Implement Workers of Am., AFL-CIO
  964 F.2d 1330· 2d Cir.· 1992-06-01 ·cited 3×·via Equitable Tolling
  The court held that the plaintiff's disparate treatment and § 1981 claims were time-barred, but his disparate impact claim was not barred by failure to exhaust administrative remedies or the statute of limitations.
• C.G. Dillard v. Merrill Lynch
  961 F.2d 1148· 5th Cir.· 1992-05-15 ·cited 3×
  The court held that the arbitration clause was enforceable, claims related to criminal prosecution timeliness require remand, and certain antitrust claims were improperly dismissed.
• Martin v. Constr. Laborer's Pension Tr. FOR S. Cal.
  947 F.2d 1381· 9th Cir.· 1991-10-28 ·cited 3×·via Equitable Tolling
  The dissent argues that the statute of limitations for declaratory and injunctive relief had not yet begun to run, and even if it had, equitable considerations should prevent the Trust from relying on it.
• Hayes Jones v. Gen. Motors Corp. & United Auto Workers
  939 F.2d 380· 6th Cir.· 1991-07-23 ·cited 3×·via Equitable Tolling
  A state law breach of contract claim arising from a settlement agreement of a grievance under a collective bargaining agreement is pre-empted by § 301 of the LMRA and is subject to a six-month statute of limitations.
• Wagoner v. Wagoner
  938 F.2d 1120· 10th Cir.· 1991-07-11 ·cited 3×·via Tolling Provisions
  The court held that a prematurely filed notice of appeal is a nullity if filed while a tolling motion under Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e) is pending.
• Miller v. United States
  932 F.2d 301· 4th Cir.· 1991-03-06 ·cited 3×
  A wrongful death action under the FTCA is time-barred if the decedent's personal injury claim accrued more than two years before death, even if the decedent was unaware of the fatal consequences at the time of accrual.
• Conkling v. Turner
  883 F.2d 431· 5th Cir.· 1989-09-20 ·cited 3×
  The court held that a client may appeal an order compelling testimony from their attorney, and that the attorney-client privilege and work product protection are waived when the client places the timing of their knowledge of fraud at issue.
• Covey v. Ark. River Co.
  865 F.2d 660· 5th Cir.· 1989-02-13 ·cited 3×·via Equitable Tolling
  The court held that the plaintiff's claim was untimely because she failed to demonstrate sufficient diligence to warrant equitable tolling of the statute of limitations.
• Robinson v. Caulkins Indiantown Citrus Co.
  701 F. Supp. 208· S.D. Fla.· 1988-11-15 ·cited 3×·via Equitable Tolling
  The court held that summary judgment is granted for § 1981 claims due to statute of limitations, but denied for Rene-Fitzgerald's Title VII claim due to a genuine issue of material fact regarding the posting of EEOC notices.
• FOY v. Mangum
  528 So. 2d 1331· Fla. 5th DCA· 1988-08-04 ·cited 3×
  Foy appeals a judgment dismissing his mechanic's lien foreclosure suit against the Mangums. The court held that an amended claim of lien filed under section 713.07(4) does not extend the one-year deadline to file a foreclosure suit under section 713.22(1), even though Foy's amend
• Taylor v. Tisch
  686 F. Supp. 304· S.D. Fla.· 1988-05-12 ·cited 3×·via Equitable Tolling
  The court held that the plaintiff's complaint was not timely filed, and the thirty-day filing period for mixed cases under 5 U.S.C. § 7703(b)(2) is a jurisdictional prerequisite, thus depriving the court of subject matter jurisdiction.
• Auslender v. Energy Mgmt. Corp.
  832 F.2d 354· 6th Cir.· 1987-11-02 ·cited 3×
  The court held that the plaintiff failed to adequately plead the statute of limitations for claims under Sections 11 and 12(2) of the Securities Act of 1933, but did adequately plead fraud with the specificity required by Fed.R.Civ.P. 9(b) for claims under Section 10(b) of the Se
• Hughes Degruy Drumm v. Sizeler Realty Co., Inc.
  817 F.2d 1195· 5th Cir.· 1987-06-01 ·cited 3×·via Equitable Tolling
  The doctrine of equitable tolling cannot salvage an untimely filed federal antitrust cause of action based on the prior filing of a state antitrust claim.
• Harvey v. City OF NEW Bern Police Dep't
  813 F.2d 652· 4th Cir.· 1987-03-19 ·cited 3×·via Equitable Tolling
  The ninety-day statutory period for filing a Title VII action commences when the claimant's agent, such as a spouse, receives the notice of right to sue, unless equitable grounds for tolling exist.
• Wise v. Hubbard
  769 F.2d 1· 1st Cir.· 1985-07-29 ·cited 3×
  The court held that the plaintiff's claim was time-barred because the issuance and recordation of the patent provided constructive notice, and there was no fraudulent concealment by the defendants.
• KAY v. Scientex Corp.
  719 F.2d 1009· 9th Cir.· 1983-11-01 ·cited 3×
  The court held that the voluntary acquisition of overissued shares by an insider constitutes a 'purchase' under Section 16(b), and that the corporation's ratification of the overissuance did not waive its Section 16(b) claims. However, issues of material fact remained regarding e
• Stevens v. Tenn. Valley Auth.
  712 F.2d 1047· 6th Cir.· 1983-07-12 ·cited 3×
  The court held that no state or federal statute of limitations applies to implied private rights of action under 5 U.S.C. § 3551, and such claims are governed by the equitable doctrine of laches.
• Hertzberg & Noveck v. Ira J. Spoon
  681 F.2d 474· 6th Cir.· 1982-06-25 ·cited 3×
  The court held that a substituted agreement to pay a debt barred by the statute of limitations is enforceable under Michigan law if in writing and signed, and that personal jurisdiction over the defendant was proper in Michigan by combining his contacts related to both the origin
• Morgan v. Amerada Hess Corp.
  357 So. 2d 1040· Fla. 1st DCA· 1978-04-06 ·cited 3×
  In this quiet title suit, the appellants (children of a man declared insane in 1941) challenged a conveyance of their father's real property interest made by his court-appointed guardian without obtaining court approval as required by statute. The court reversed the summary judgm
• Bruno v. United States
  547 F.2d 71· 8th Cir.· 1976-12-29 ·cited 3×
  The court held that a tax refund suit under 28 U.S.C. § 1346(a)(1) requires a timely administrative claim for refund as mandated by 26 U.S.C. § 7422(a) and § 6511, and that the general tolling provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 2401 do not apply.
• Leonard v. Honorable Russell H. McINTOSH
  237 So. 2d 809· Fla. 4th DCA· 1970-07-24 ·cited 3×
  A crowded court docket is not a 'good and sufficient reason' to toll the speedy trial statute, and a defendant should be discharged if not brought to trial within the statutory period.
• United States v. Wilson
  304 F.2d 530· 3d Cir.· 1962-06-08 ·cited 3×·via Suspension Of Statute Of Limitations
  The court held that the action to collect unpaid income taxes was timely filed because the statute of limitations was suspended until one year after the last unpaid installment, which extended beyond the filing date.
• Chuchuru v. Chutchurru
  185 F.2d 62· 10th Cir.· 1950-11-03 ·cited 3×
  The court held that the statute of limitations was tolled for the plaintiff, a French citizen residing in enemy territory during wartime, and that she was the proper party to sue on the promissory notes under French law and federal rules.
• Frieda Springer v. Aiken
  143 Fla. 256· Fla.· 1940-05-31 ·cited 3×·via Suspension Of Statute Of Limitations
  The Florida Supreme Court held that Section 185 of the Probate Act does not permit plaintiffs to institute a new action against a deceased debtor's estate after the statute of limitations has run, where an original action filed before the debtor's death was allowed to lapse witho
• Bradford G. Williams v. Lawyer's Co-operative Publ'g Co.
  136 Fla. 884· Fla.· 1939-04-04 ·cited 3×
  In this debt collection case, the Florida Supreme Court addresses whether a plaintiff can maintain an action on an original debt when the defendant executed promissory notes after a bankruptcy discharge. The court holds that the notes constituted a valid promise to pay the discha
• Knowles Bros. Agency v. Larkin
  132 Fla. 667· Fla.· 1938-06-08 ·cited 3×
  Knowles Brothers Agency sued C. M. Larkin on a written guarantee of a promissory note executed by Theo. Baars. The defendant raised the five-year statute of limitations as a defense, and the plaintiff attempted to revive the claim through alleged oral acknowledgments and promises
• Mach v. Mosgrove
  127 Fla. 446· Fla.· 1937-03-12 ·cited 3×
  Ernest Mach sued the executors of Emil Mach's estate for an open account debt. The court affirmed dismissal of Mach's claim, holding that the three-year statute of limitations barred the action and that Mach could not rely on an alleged tax credit to toll the statute because the
• W. Coast Fruit Co. v. Hackney
  102 Fla. 1066· Fla.· 1931-10-01 ·cited 3×·via Suspension Of Statute Of Limitations
  West Coast Fruit Company sued W.L. Hackney for breach of contract in 1925. After an erroneous directed verdict against the plaintiff was reversed on appeal in 1929, the plaintiff abandoned the original suit and filed a new one in 1929, which was barred by the statute of limitatio