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
-
179 F.2d 530·
1st Cir.·
1950-01-19
·cited 1×
The Salvage Act of 1912 applies to salvage claims brought by the government for services rendered by a government vessel to a private vessel, and the two-year limitation period bars the claim when the salved vessel was reasonably arrestable within the jurisdiction.
-
Fla.·
2026-10-22
Section 627.70152, Florida Statutes, does not apply retroactively to insurance policies issued before the statute's July 1, 2021 effective date. The statute's presuit notice requirement, when viewed as a whole with its penalties and effects on insurers' obligations and insureds'
-
D.L. appealed the dismissal of her negligence claims against foster care providers alleging they failed to protect her from sexual battery while in foster care. The court reversed, holding that D.L.'s negligence claims related to sexual abuse of a minor fall under Florida's unlim
-
D.L. filed a negligence action against foster care providers and a foster parent for failing to protect her from sexual abuse while in foster care. The trial court dismissed the claims as barred by the four-year statute of limitations for negligence, but the Fifth District Court
-
Stoltz Management sued Entrata, Inc. for breach of contract, unjust enrichment, fraud, and violations of unfair trade practices acts after Entrata failed to deliver functional smart home hubs for apartment complexes and refused refunds. The Delaware Superior Court granted the mot
-
The Delaware Superior Court partially granted and partially denied a defendant's motions to dismiss an indictment charging him with multiple sexual offenses against minors allegedly committed in 1995-1996. The court dismissed two counts under the Ex Post Facto Clause but upheld t
-
The court held that a pro se plaintiff's motion for relief from judgment under Rule 60(b) should be denied when the dismissal resulted from his intentional actions and lack of diligence, not excusable neglect or extraordinary circumstances.
-
The court held that a pro se plaintiff's motion for relief from judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(1) and (6) should be denied because his failure to pay the filing fee or seek in forma pauperis status was not due to excusable neglect or extraordinary circumstan
-
The court held that the plaintiff failed to sufficiently plead participation in a sex trafficking venture for the TVPRA claim and that the negligence claim was time-barred. The vicarious liability claim was allowed to proceed.
-
The court held that the plaintiff failed to exhaust administrative remedies for her ADA, Title VII, and FCRA claims, and her FMLA and Florida Whistleblower Act claims were time-barred, thus granting the defendant's motion to dismiss.
-
Del. Super. Ct.·
2026-01-15
A pro se plaintiff filed a medical negligence action against Select Specialty Hospital after her husband's death following his discharge from the hospital. The court dismissed the case for failure to file a compliant affidavit of merit as required by Delaware statute, despite gra
-
M.D. Fla.·
2026-01-12
The court held that the petitioner's federal habeas corpus petition was untimely filed and that his double jeopardy claim was waived by his negotiated plea and lacked factual support.
-
The district court denied petitioner Santiago's Rule 60(b)(3) motion seeking relief from a final judgment based on alleged fraud or misrepresentation by the respondent. The court found that Santiago failed to present clear and convincing evidence of misconduct and that any inform
-
The court held that the petitioner's motion to vacate sentence was time-barred and that he was not entitled to equitable tolling or relief on his constitutional claims.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2025-12-29
The court denied the petition for writ of habeas corpus, finding that the petitioner's claims were either not cognizable, waived by his guilty plea, or failed to meet the stringent standards for relief under AEDPA.
-
The court held that it would not consider new arguments raised for the first time in objections to a magistrate judge's report and recommendation, and that the defendant's motion to modify the protective order was denied.
-
A district court lacks jurisdiction to consider a second or successive habeas corpus petition if the petitioner has not obtained authorization from the appropriate court of appeals.
-
The court held that the habeas corpus application was time-barred because the applicant failed to demonstrate entitlement to equitable tolling and did not properly toll the limitations period through state post-conviction proceedings.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2025-12-08
The court held that the petitioner's federal habeas corpus petition was time-barred under AEDPA because it was filed more than one year after his convictions became final, and no exceptions applied.
-
The court held that the plaintiff's claims under the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act were time-barred, as she failed to demonstrate diligence or extraordinary circumstances to justify equitable tolling or the delayed discovery doctrine.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2025-11-25
The court held that a stay of habeas corpus proceedings is not warranted when the petitioner has not demonstrated that a stay would serve any purpose other than delay, which is contrary to the AEDPA's goals.
-
The court held that the plaintiff's claims are time-barred and that she has failed to sufficiently plead equitable tolling or Rule 15 relation-back.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2025-11-21
The court held that the movant's Section 2255 motion was untimely and that his claims of ineffective assistance of counsel lacked merit. Therefore, the motion was denied.
-
The Superior Court denied the defendants' motion to dismiss, finding that the plaintiff's legal malpractice claims were not barred by the statute of limitations. The court held that the continuous representation doctrine could delay the accrual of the cause of action, and that th
-
M.D. Fla.·
2025-11-18
The court held that the petitioner's habeas corpus petition was untimely filed and therefore dismissed with prejudice.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2025-11-14
The court held that the petitioner's habeas corpus petition was untimely filed and dismissed it with prejudice.
-
The court held that the petitioner's habeas corpus petition was time-barred under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA) because it was filed after the one-year limitation period expired. The court also denied a certificate of appealability.
-
The court held that the petitioner's federal habeas petition was untimely under AEDPA and that he failed to satisfy any exceptions to the limitations period.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2025-11-05
The federal habeas petition was dismissed as untimely because it was filed outside the one-year statute of limitations, and the petitioner's state post-conviction motion did not toll the period as it was filed after the deadline expired.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2025-11-04
The court held that the petition for a writ of habeas corpus was untimely filed, as it was filed more than six years after the one-year limitations period expired.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2025-11-04
The court held that the petitioner's federal habeas corpus petition was timely filed due to the tolling of the one-year limitations period by state post-conviction proceedings.
-
The court held that the petitioner's habeas corpus petition was untimely filed under the one-year limitations period imposed by AEDPA, and equitable tolling was not warranted.
-
The court held that the plaintiff's claims are time-barred because the current lawsuit was filed outside the statutory limitations period, and the prior dismissal, though without prejudice, was effectively with prejudice due to the statute of limitations.
-
The court held that the petitioner's habeas corpus petition was untimely filed and dismissed it with prejudice.
-
The federal habeas petition is dismissed as time-barred because it was filed outside the one-year limitations period prescribed by the AEDPA. A certificate of appealability is denied as reasonable jurists would not debate the procedural issue of untimeliness.
-
The court held that a prior dismissal without prejudice for failure to pay a filing fee does not preserve a cause of action outside the statute of limitations, nor does it warrant equitable tolling.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2025-10-28
The court held that the petitioner's habeas corpus petition was time-barred under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA).
-
The court held that the plaintiff's claims were time-barred because they were filed after the expiration of the applicable statute of limitations, and equitable tolling was not warranted.
-
The court held that the petitioner's motion to vacate his conviction was untimely filed and ordered him to show cause why it should not be dismissed.
-
The court held that the plaintiff's motion to appeal in forma pauperis is frivolous and lacks good faith, and therefore must be denied.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2025-10-07
The federal habeas corpus petition is dismissed as time-barred because the petitioner failed to file within the one-year limitations period prescribed by AEDPA. An amended judgment entered nunc pro tunc does not reset the limitations clock.
-
The court held that the motion to vacate the conviction under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 was time-barred because it was filed outside the one-year statute of limitations, and the defendant failed to establish entitlement to equitable tolling.
-
N.D. Fla.·
2025-10-02
A § 2254 habeas petition filed more than one year after a conviction becomes final, without a properly filed state post-conviction motion pending during the limitations period, is untimely and must be dismissed under Habeas Rule 4.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2025-09-30
The court held that the pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus was untimely under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA) because it was filed more than eight years after the one-year limitation period expired, and the petitioner failed to establish actual
-
M.D. Fla.·
2025-09-16
The court held that the petitioner's claims were waived by his guilty plea and, alternatively, that the claims lacked merit and were procedurally barred. A certificate of appealability was denied.
-
N.D. Fla.·
2025-09-15
Segwayne Kirk Anthony Goldson challenged his 2016 conviction for sexual battery by filing a federal habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, raising claims of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel regarding a sentencing enhancement and ineffective assistance of trial counsel
-
M.D. Fla.·
2025-09-12
A claim under the National Flood Insurance Program is time-barred if not filed in federal court within one year of the partial denial notice, even if initially filed in state court against the wrong party.
-
Fla. 3d DCA·
2025-09-10
The estate of Diego Maradona appealed summary judgment dismissing his fraud claims against his ex-wife Claudia Villafañe over hidden real estate purchases, as well as a contempt order and sanctions award. The court affirmed the summary judgment because Maradona had expressly waiv
-
A petitioner is not 'in custody' for habeas corpus purposes if their sentence has fully expired, even if collateral consequences remain.
-
An attorney's negligence, even gross negligence, does not constitute the extraordinary circumstances required for equitable tolling of a federal habeas petition deadline.