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

• Hoover v. Langston Equip. Assocs., Inc.
  958 F.2d 742· 6th Cir.· 1992-03-12 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the district court did not err in dismissing the complaint as time-barred and for failure to plead fraud with particularity, and did not abuse its discretion in denying leave to amend.
• Conaway v. Control Data Corp.
  955 F.2d 358· 5th Cir.· 1992-03-10 ·cited 2×·via Equitable Tolling
  The court held that Texas law does not recognize negligent infliction of emotional distress in the employment context, and that the plaintiff's ADEA claim was time-barred due to failure to file with the EEOC within the statutory period.
• Equal Emp. Opportunity Comm'n v. Am. & Efird Mills, Inc.
  964 F.2d 300· 4th Cir.· 1992-02-26 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) possesses independent statutory authority to investigate age discrimination claims and enforce the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), even when an individual employee's charge is time-barred.
• Lown v. Brimeyer
  956 F.2d 780· 8th Cir.· 1992-02-07 ·cited 2×
  The statute of limitations for a § 1983 claim is not tolled while a state inmate exhausts state remedies, as the inmate controls the filing of the federal action.
• Christopher C. DAY, Ph.D. v. Moscow
  955 F.2d 807· 2d Cir.· 1992-01-24 ·cited 2×
  The court held that claims against defendants other than Moscow were barred by res judicata and that the arrest/search claims against Moscow were barred by the statute of limitations, as tolling provisions did not apply to federal § 1983 actions.
• Livingstone v. Schnuck Mkt., Inc.
  950 F.2d 579· 8th Cir.· 1991-12-10 ·cited 2×
  The court held that an employee's suit against an employer to enforce an arbitration award is a hybrid § 301/fair representation claim, subject to a six-month statute of limitations, which had expired.
• Cal. Union Ins. Co. v. Am. Diversified Sav. Bank
  948 F.2d 556· 9th Cir.· 1991-10-30 ·cited 2×·via Equitable Tolling
  The court held that the fidelity bond terminated automatically upon FSLIC's takeover and that FSLIC failed to present sufficient evidence of loss discovery prior to termination.
• Benford v. Frank
  943 F.2d 609· 6th Cir.· 1991-08-26 ·cited 2×·via Equitable Tolling
  The court held that it lacked jurisdiction over two appellants due to an insufficient notice of appeal and that the remaining appellant failed to exhaust administrative remedies within the required timeframe, barring his claims.
• DE Young v. James L. Bierfeld, M.D.
  581 So. 2d 629· Fla. 3d DCA· 1991-06-11 ·cited 2×
  The court held that filing a petition for an automatic 90-day extension of the statute of limitations under Florida's Medical Malpractice Reform Act also extended the pre-suit screening and settlement period. The trial court erred in dismissing the case for failure to cooperate d
• Vaughan v. Grijalva
  927 F.2d 476· 9th Cir.· 1991-03-01 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the district court erred in dismissing the prisoners' claims based on the statute of limitations without sufficient evidence of when the prisoners knew or reasonably should have known of their right to bring the action.
• Sofia Glantzis and Phillip Glantzis v. State Auto. Mut. Ins. Co.
  573 So. 2d 1049· Fla. 4th DCA· 1991-02-06 ·cited 2×
  Sofia and Phillip Glantzis appealed a judgment dismissing their uninsured motorist claim as barred by the statute of limitations. The Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed, holding that the statute of limitations was tolled when State Auto agreed to arbitrate the claim, and th
• Williams-Scaife v. Dep't OF Def. Dependent Schs.
  925 F.2d 346· 9th Cir.· 1991-02-06 ·cited 2×·via Equitable Tolling
  The court held that the Supreme Court's decision in Irwin v. Veteran's Administration allows for equitable tolling of the statute of limitations in employment discrimination cases against the federal government.
• Lowell P. McKinney v. Waterman S.S. Corp.
  925 F.2d 1· 1st Cir.· 1991-01-30 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the appellant's claims were time-barred due to unreasonable delay in filing after the bankruptcy stay was lifted, and that equitable estoppel did not apply.
• Bianchi v. Bellingham Police Dep't
  909 F.2d 1316· 9th Cir.· 1990-07-26 ·cited 2×
  The court held that actual, uninterrupted incarceration is the touchstone for determining disability by incarceration under Washington's tolling provision, allowing the statute of limitations to be tolled.
• Brezovski v. United States Postal Serv.
  905 F.2d 334· 10th Cir.· 1990-06-11 ·cited 2×·via Equitable Tolling
  The court held that the EEOC's right-to-sue letter contained misleading language regarding the proper defendant, justifying equitable tolling of the limitations period. Therefore, the amended complaint naming the correct defendant related back to the original filing date.
• In the Complaint & Petition of Lloyd's Leasing Ltd. v. Bates
  902 F.2d 368· 5th Cir.· 1990-06-04 ·cited 2×
  A class action cannot be maintained in a limitation of liability proceeding, and the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying permission for late filed claims.
• Mason v. AETNA Life Ins. Co.
  901 F.2d 662· 8th Cir.· 1990-04-12 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the plaintiff's action for disability benefits was time-barred by the statute of limitations and that no circumstances justified tolling the statute.
• Koclanakis v. Merrimack Mut. Fire Ins. Co.
  899 F.2d 673· 7th Cir.· 1990-04-12 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the plaintiff's lawsuit was time-barred because it was filed after the one-year contractual limitation period expired and neither statutory nor equitable tolling applied.
• Jones v. City OF Hamtramck
  905 F.2d 908· 6th Cir.· 1990-04-10 ·cited 2×
  The Sixth Circuit held that the Michigan tolling statute for imprisonment does not apply to a plaintiff who was merely under arrest when their cause of action accrued, as the statute requires actual imprisonment.
• United States v. Metro. Petroleum Co., Inc.
  743 F. Supp. 820· S.D. Fla.· 1990-03-30 ·cited 2×·via Equitable Tolling
  The court held that the defendants' failure to seek judicial review of the agency's remedial order within the statutory 60-day period barred any subsequent challenge to the order's validity, even when raised as a defense in an enforcement action.
• Charles and Marion Hefti v. Commissioner OF Internal Revenue
  899 F.2d 709· 8th Cir.· 1990-03-26 ·cited 2×
• Dr. G.V.V. RAO v. Baker
  898 F.2d 191· D.C. Cir.· 1990-03-13 ·cited 2×·via Equitable Tolling
  The court held that the appellant's notice of appeal to the EEOC was untimely because it was filed more than 20 days after constructive receipt of the agency's final decision by his attorney and a designated friend.
• Robinson v. Willow Glen Acad. and/or Juneau Acad.
  895 F.2d 1168· 7th Cir.· 1990-02-13 ·cited 2×
  A voluntarily dismissed federal diversity suit does not toll the statute of limitations under Wisconsin law because the dismissal renders the action a nullity.
• Gencarelle v. Gen. Dynamics Corp.
  892 F.2d 173· 2d Cir.· 1989-12-14 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the claimant's chronic synovitis was not an occupational disease and that the employer's timely filing of an initial injury report prevented tolling of the statute of limitations.
• Borgman v. Commissioner OF Internal Revenue
  888 F.2d 916· 1st Cir.· 1989-11-17 ·cited 2×
  A notice of deficiency is valid and tolls the statute of limitations if it is actually received by the taxpayer without prejudicial delay, even if not mailed to their last known address.
• Harding v. Galceran
  889 F.2d 906· 9th Cir.· 1989-11-16 ·cited 2×
  The statute of limitations for a section 1983 claim against peace officers is tolled by a state statute that prevents civil actions while criminal charges are pending against the plaintiff, as the tolling provision is consistent with federal law.
• Gagnon v. G.D. Searle & Co.
  889 F.2d 340· 1st Cir.· 1989-11-15 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the plaintiff's claims were time-barred under New Hampshire's statutes of limitations, as the cause of action accrued when the plaintiff knew or should have known of her injury and its potential cause.
• Dozier v. Otis R. Bowen, M.D.
  891 F.2d 769· 10th Cir.· 1989-10-02 ·cited 2×·via Equitable Tolling
  The denial of a request to reopen a Social Security benefits case and extend the time for judicial review is not subject to judicial review.
• Mahoney v. United States Postal Serv.
  884 F.2d 1194· 9th Cir.· 1989-09-06 ·cited 2×·via Equitable Tolling
  The court held that the 30-day limitations period for filing an employment discrimination action against the Postal Service under 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-16(c) is jurisdictional, and failure to name the proper defendant within that period deprives the court of jurisdiction.
• Barnhart v. United States
  884 F.2d 295· 7th Cir.· 1989-08-31 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the plaintiff's fear of retaliation and dependency on the VA, stemming from his underlying emotional condition and exacerbated by his tardive dyskinesia, did not toll the administrative statute of limitations under the Federal Tort Claims Act because the injur
• E.W. French & Sons, Inc. v. Gen. Portland Inc.
  885 F.2d 1392· 9th Cir.· 1989-08-31 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the district court erred in striking co-conspirator statements under an outdated standard and in its jury instruction regarding a conspiracy to eliminate a competitor. It also found the district court abused its discretion regarding the authentication and prob
• Virgin Islands Conservation Soc'y, Inc. v. Virgin Islands Bd. OF Land USE Appeals
  881 F.2d 28· 3d Cir.· 1989-07-25 ·cited 2×
  A timely filed petition for reconsideration of an agency decision tolls the statute of limitations for seeking judicial review of that decision.
• Smith v. United States
  873 F.2d 218· 9th Cir.· 1989-04-21 ·cited 2×·via Equitable Tolling
  The court held that the plaintiff's claims were properly dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because they failed to comply with the procedural requirements of the Suits in Admiralty Act and the Clarification Act.
• Jones v. Harold W. Griffith, M.D.
  870 F.2d 1363· 7th Cir.· 1989-03-30 ·cited 2×
  A federal district court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction to issue preliminary determinations under the Indiana Medical Malpractice Act because such determinations are advisory opinions and do not constitute a case or controversy ripe for federal adjudication.
• MacKey v. Judy's Foods, Inc.
  867 F.2d 325· 6th Cir.· 1989-02-10 ·cited 2×·via Equitable Tolling
  The court held that all franchisees' claims were barred by either the applicable statute of limitations or a validly executed release.
• Womble v. Bhangu
  864 F.2d 1212· 5th Cir.· 1989-02-08 ·cited 2×·via Equitable Tolling
  The court held that failure to file an EEOC charge is not a jurisdictional defect, but that lack of statutory employer status would divest the court of subject matter jurisdiction over the federal claim and any pendent state claims.
• Tomlin v. McDANIEL
  865 F.2d 209· 9th Cir.· 1989-01-10 ·cited 2×
  A motion for relief from judgment under Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b) cannot be used to revive a case that became final before changes in the applicable law occurred.
• Milan Knox v. Cook Cnty. Sheriff's Police Dep't & Robert Neapolitan
  866 F.2d 905· 7th Cir.· 1988-12-27 ·cited 2×·via Tolling Provisions
  A pro se litigant's erroneous concession regarding the statute of limitations, especially after denial of appointed counsel, should not be the basis for dismissing their claim.
• Barnard v. Commercial Carriers, Inc.
  863 F.2d 694· 10th Cir.· 1988-12-15 ·cited 2×·via Equitable Tolling
  The court held that the union breached its duty of fair representation and the company breached the collective bargaining agreement.
• Cole v. United States
  863 F.2d 34· 9th Cir.· 1988-12-14 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the IRS assessment was timely because the statute of limitations was tolled for 150 days following the Tax Court decision, encompassing the period for appeal and the subsequent 60-day assessment period.
• Williams v. Conoco, Inc.
  860 F.2d 1306· 5th Cir.· 1988-12-02 ·cited 2×
  The prescriptive period for a claim under Louisiana's antidiscrimination law begins to run upon notification of discharge, not the actual date of discharge.
• Shell Offshore Inc. v. Fed. Energy Regulatory Comm'n
  858 F.2d 1147· 5th Cir.· 1988-11-02 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the Outer Continental Shelf Land Act § 10(a) is a statute of limitations for determining uncollectibility of royalty overpayments, but producers must still demonstrate reasonable efforts to protect their rights, such as timely notice to MMS. The court reversed
• Cook v. The United States
  855 F.2d 848· Fed. Cir.· 1988-08-29 ·cited 2×·via Equitable Tolling
  The court held that the FLSA violations were not willful, claims accrued on September 22, 1983, and affirmed the award of counsel fees.
• Brown v. Reliable Sheet Metal Works, Inc.
  852 F.2d 932· 7th Cir.· 1988-07-18 ·cited 2×·via Equitable Tolling
  The filing of a Title VII action in state court does not toll the ninety-day federal filing period when the state court lacks jurisdiction over Title VII claims due to exhaustion requirements.
• Rowland v. Donald A. Patterson, M.D.
  852 F.2d 108· 4th Cir.· 1988-07-18 ·cited 2×
  The court held that for diversity jurisdiction purposes, an action is commenced on the date the federal complaint is filed, not when a state administrative claim is filed, even if the administrative filing tolls the statute of limitations.
• Soghanalian v. Soghanalian
  693 F. Supp. 1091· S.D. Fla.· 1988-06-27 ·cited 2×
  The court held that diversity jurisdiction exists because the defendant's domicile is in New York, and even if he holds dual citizenship, his Lebanese citizenship would not be recognized for diversity purposes. The court also found the counter-counterclaim to be compulsory.
• Aline Ervin v. Cnty. OF LOS Angeles
  848 F.2d 1018· 9th Cir.· 1988-06-13 ·cited 2×·via Equitable Tolling
  The court held that the statute of limitations for a federal civil rights action was not equitably tolled by a prior state tort claim action because the claims were legally distinct wrongs and the plaintiff did not act reasonably and in good faith.
• Hohri v. The United States
  847 F.2d 779· Fed. Cir.· 1988-05-11 ·cited 2×
  Cases involving both the Little Tucker Act and Federal Tort Claims Act are appealable only to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.
• Herrera-Diaz v. United States
  845 F.2d 1534· 9th Cir.· 1988-05-04 ·cited 2×
  The court held that Victor's medical negligence claim accrued in 1978 when his mother knew of his injury and its cause, making the claim time-barred under the FTCA's two-year statute of limitations.
• McDONALD v. United States
  843 F.2d 247· 6th Cir.· 1988-03-31 ·cited 2×
  A patient's reasonable reliance on physician assurances that complications are normal and will improve tolls the statute of limitations for medical malpractice claims against the government.