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

• Kaiser v. Cahn
  510 F.2d 282· 2d Cir.· 1974-12-19 ·cited 48×·via Tolling Provisions
  The court affirmed the grant of summary judgment, holding that the plaintiff's claim was untimely because New York law, as applied under federal common law, does not permit 'tacking' of tolling periods after a release from imprisonment.
• Bernard Food Indus., Inc. v. The Dietene Co.
  415 F.2d 1279· 7th Cir.· 1969-08-19 ·cited 48×
  The court held that the libel claim was barred by the statute of limitations, the Lanham Act claim failed because the misrepresentations were about the plaintiff's product, and the Sherman Act claim failed due to lack of evidence of intent or market power.
• Fulton Cnty. Adm'r v. Sullivan
  753 So. 2d 549· Fla.· 1999-11-24 ·cited 47×
  The Florida Supreme Court held that Georgia's statute of limitations applies to a wrongful death action filed in Florida, and that Georgia's express tolling provision for fraudulent concealment saved the claim from being time-barred. The Court reversed the Fourth District's rever
• Fla. Birth-Related Neurological Injury Comp. Ass'n v. Jaimes McKAUGHAN and Darlene McKaughan
  668 So. 2d 974· Fla.· 1996-02-29 ·cited 47×·via Tolling Provisions
  The Florida Supreme Court held that the NICA plan does not vest exclusive jurisdiction in an administrative hearing officer to determine whether a newborn's injury qualifies as a birth-related neurological injury when a medical malpractice action is filed in circuit court and the
• Coventry v. United States Steel Corp. Pa. Human Relations Comm'n
  856 F.2d 514· 3d Cir.· 1988-08-26 ·cited 47×·via Equitable Tolling
  The court held that the district court erred in denying the plaintiff's motion to amend his complaint and in finding that the plaintiff knowingly and voluntarily waived his ADEA claims.
• Merrel J. Cline v. Brusett
  661 F.2d 108· 9th Cir.· 1981-11-09 ·cited 47×
  The court held that most of the appellant's claims were barred by the statute of limitations, but two claims related to a second conviction were not. The court affirmed the dismissal of most claims and reversed the dismissal of two claims, remanding for further proceedings.
• Simon v. United States
  244 F.2d 703· 5th Cir.· 1957-05-17 ·cited 47×
  The court held that the two-year time limit in the Federal Tort Claims Act is a condition precedent to suit, not a statute of limitations, and therefore cannot be tolled by minority. The action was filed too late.
• Felty v. Graves-Humphreys Co.
  818 F.2d 1126· 4th Cir.· 1987-05-21 ·cited 46×·via Equitable Tolling
  The court held that the plaintiff's own testimony did not establish genuine issues of material fact regarding employer coercion, thus affirming the grant of summary judgment.
• Miller v. Int'l Tel. & Tel. Corp.
  755 F.2d 20· 2d Cir.· 1985-02-06 ·cited 46×
  The court held that the plaintiff's Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) claim was time-barred because he failed to file his charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) within the 300-day statutory period after receiving notice of termination. The court
• Sturdivan v. State
  419 So. 2d 300· Fla.· 1982-06-24 ·cited 46×
  Merle Sturdivan was convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to death for a 1971 killing, but the Florida Supreme Court reversed and remanded for a new trial because the trial court erroneously refused to instruct the jury on lesser included offenses. The court held that th
• Hart v. J. T. Baker Chem. Co.
  598 F.2d 829· 3d Cir.· 1979-05-14 ·cited 46×·via Equitable Tolling
  The court held that the time limits for filing a charge under Title VII are not jurisdictional but are subject to equitable tolling, but affirmed the lower court's refusal to toll the time period in this specific case.
• Nardone v. Reynolds
  538 F.2d 1131· 5th Cir.· 1976-09-17 ·cited 46×
  The court held that the fiduciary duty of a physician to disclose known facts can toll the statute of limitations, and this duty's consequences do not automatically expire upon termination of the doctor-patient relationship.
• Chambers v. Omaha Pub. Sch. Dist.
  536 F.2d 222· 8th Cir.· 1976-05-11 ·cited 46×
  The court held that Neb.Rev.Stat. § 25-219, a three-year statute of limitations for actions based on federal statutes, applies to the plaintiff's claims under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1983, and Title VI, and that the plaintiff's action was untimely filed.
• Mann v. United States
  399 F.2d 672· 9th Cir.· 1968-08-29 ·cited 46×
  The court held that the statute of limitations for tort claims against the United States is not tolled for a claimant's minority and that general statutes apply to Indians.
• Michelsen v. Penney
  135 F.2d 409· 2d Cir.· 1943-03-19 ·cited 46×
  The court held that de facto directors, who fail to meet statutory qualifications, are liable for losses resulting from their actions, even if those actions were not negligent, because they are treated as trespassers.
• Rivera-Gomez v. de Castro
  843 F.2d 631· 1st Cir.· 1988-04-07 ·cited 45×·via Equitable Tolling
  The court held that the district court erred by not considering the plaintiffs' equitable tolling claim, which was sufficiently raised in the pleadings and memoranda, before granting judgment on the pleadings.
• Price v. Litton Bus. Sys., Inc.
  694 F.2d 963· 4th Cir.· 1982-12-09 ·cited 45×
  The court held that the 180-day period for filing an ADEA claim begins when the employee is informed of the discriminatory decision, not when the effects are fully realized or when employment ends.
• Bomba v. W. L. Belvidere, Inc.
  579 F.2d 1067· 7th Cir.· 1978-07-21 ·cited 45×·via Equitable Tolling
  The court held that the doctrine of equitable estoppel may apply to claims under the Interstate Land Sales Full Disclosure Act, even when the statute of limitations contains unequivocal language like 'in no event'.
• Clark v. Olinkraft, Inc.
  556 F.2d 1219· 5th Cir.· 1977-08-04 ·cited 45×
  The judgment of the District Court should be affirmed because the plaintiff's discrimination claim was not timely filed and there was no presently existing violation when the complaint was filed.
• Proctor v. Schomberg
  63 So. 2d 68· Fla.· 1953-02-06 ·cited 45×
  A patient sued a dentist for malpractice after the dentist allegedly left a broken metal instrument in her jaw during an extraction. The trial court dismissed the complaint on the ground that the statute of limitations had expired, but the Florida Supreme Court reversed, holding
• Kirkland v. Fla. Dep't of Corr.
  2006 WL 3755195· N.D. Fla.· 2024-08-20 ·cited 44×·via Equitable Tolling
  The court held that the petitioner's federal habeas corpus petition is time-barred under AEDPA's one-year limitations period.
• United States v. Gray
  876 F.2d 1411· 9th Cir.· 1989-06-05 ·cited 44×
  The court held that the reassignment of the case, the attorney's testimony regarding the sentencing date, and the prosecutor's closing arguments were not improper. However, the defendant must be resentenced under the Sentencing Guidelines because the offense of failure to appear
• Emrich v. Touche Ross & Co.
  846 F.2d 1190· 9th Cir.· 1988-05-16 ·cited 44×·via Equitable Tolling
  The court held that the district court properly dismissed claims under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 but erred in dismissing claims under the Securities Act of 1933 and the RICO and state law claims, which should be remanded for further proceedings on statutes of limitation
• United States v. Hook
  781 F.2d 1166· 6th Cir.· 1986-01-21 ·cited 44×
  The statute of limitations had run on the 1975 and 1976 tax evasion counts, and these counts should have been dismissed.
• Miles Lincoln v. Dist. 9 OF the Int'l Ass'n OF MacHinists & Aerospace Workers & Anheuser Busch Inc.
  723 F.2d 627· 8th Cir.· 1983-12-27 ·cited 44×
  The court held that the DelCostello decision, establishing a six-month statute of limitations for hybrid Section 301 suits, applies retroactively, and the plaintiff's suit was untimely filed under this standard.
• Rice v. Hamilton AIR Force Base Commissary
  720 F.2d 1082· 9th Cir.· 1983-11-21 ·cited 44×·via Equitable Tolling
  A pro se litigant's request for appointment of counsel, filed within the jurisdictional time limit and containing a description of the claim and administrative dispositions, can be considered the filing of a civil action under Title VII, and the proper defendant can be identified
• MT. Hood Stages, Inc. v. The Greyhound Corp. & Greyhound Lines, Inc.
  616 F.2d 394· 9th Cir.· 1980-02-26 ·cited 44×
  The court held that the statute of limitations for Mt. Hood's antitrust claim was equitably tolled during the pendency of its related administrative proceeding before the Interstate Commerce Commission.
• SUN Shipbuilding & DRY Dock Co. v. McCABE
  593 F.2d 234· 3d Cir.· 1979-02-22 ·cited 44×·via Tolling Provisions
  The court held that claims are barred by the statute of limitations and notice provisions of the Longshoremen's and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act because the employer did not have sufficient notice of the specific injuries.
• Roscell Louis v. S. Broward Hosp. Dist. f/a/o/b/o Mem'l Hosp.
  353 So. 2d 562· Fla. 4th DCA· 1977-11-22 ·cited 44×
  Plaintiffs filed suit against a hospital within the statute of limitations but then amended their complaint to name a different legal entity as defendant after the limitations period expired. The court affirmed summary judgment dismissing the case, holding that the amendment did
• Prather v. Neva Paperbacks, Inc.
  446 F.2d 338· 5th Cir.· 1971-06-22 ·cited 44×
  The court held that the plaintiff's inability to procure a copy of the allegedly infringing book, despite knowledge of its existence, did not constitute fraudulent concealment sufficient to toll the statute of limitations under general equitable principles.
• Sackett v. Beaman
  399 F.2d 884· 9th Cir.· 1968-09-05 ·cited 44×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying leave to file a second amended complaint because the proposed claim for damages was barred by the statute of limitations.
• Saylor v. Thayer Lindsley
  391 F.2d 965· 2d Cir.· 1968-03-18 ·cited 44×
  A prior dismissal for failure to post a security-for-costs bond, even if 'with prejudice,' is not an adjudication on the merits for res judicata purposes when the plaintiff could not satisfy a precondition to proceeding.
• N. Metal Co. v. United States
  350 F.2d 833· 3d Cir.· 1965-08-27 ·cited 44×
  The limitations period under the Suits in Admiralty Act is tolled during the pendency of administrative proceedings required by a government contract's Disputes Clause.
• Hall v. Seaboard Mar. Corp. & Fla. Indus. Comm'n
  104 So. 2d 384· Fla. 1st DCA· 1958-07-08 ·cited 44×
  The court held that a petition for modification of a prior compensation order, based on a mistake in a determination of fact, cannot be used to relitigate an identical issue with merely cumulative evidence.
• Amendments to the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure
  773 So. 2d 1098· Fla.· 2000-10-05 ·cited 43×·via Tolling Provisions
  This is a Florida Supreme Court order adopting proposed amendments to the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, submitted by the Civil Procedure Rules Committee. The court approves substantive amendments to multiple rules and forms, effective January 1, 2001.
• Norlock v. City OF Garland
  768 F.2d 654· 5th Cir.· 1985-08-15 ·cited 43×
  The court held that the district court did not err in dismissing the suit for failure to perfect service of process under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4, as the plaintiff failed to comply with the rule's requirements for service by mail and did not seek an extension of time.
• Mistretta v. Sandia Corp.
  639 F.2d 588· 10th Cir.· 1980-10-21 ·cited 43×·via Equitable Tolling
  The court granted reconsideration, holding that since no general damages were awarded, layoff allowances could not be deducted, and thus Kassens and Robertson should receive the full amount of extended layoff allowances.
• Kephart v. Inst. OF GAS Tech.
  581 F.2d 1287· 7th Cir.· 1978-08-24 ·cited 43×·via Equitable Tolling
  The 180-day notice requirement of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) is not a jurisdictional prerequisite and may be tolled on equitable grounds, particularly when the employer fails to post required notices of employee rights.
• Wrenn v. Am. Cast Iron Pipe Co.
  575 F.2d 544· 5th Cir.· 1978-06-21 ·cited 43×
  The court held that dismissing a pro se plaintiff's Title VII action for late payment of a filing fee, after the plaintiff had requested counsel and filed correspondence indicating intent to sue, was an abuse of discretion.
• D.H. and L.H. v. Adept Cmty. Servs., Inc.
  217 So. 3d 1072· Fla. 2d DCA· 2017-04-05 ·cited 42×
  Twin minors sued through their grandparents for negligence against service providers, alleging inadequate care contributed to abuse and neglect by their developmentally disabled mother. The court affirmed summary judgment dismissing the claim as barred by Florida's four-year stat
• Sterling & Esther Jensen v. Snellings
  841 F.2d 600· 5th Cir.· 1988-04-06 ·cited 42×
  The court held that the federal securities claims were time-barred due to the plaintiffs' failure to exercise reasonable diligence in discovering the fraud. The RICO claims were reversed and remanded as they were timely filed under the applicable four-year statute of limitations.
• Am. Postal Workers Union, AFL-CIO v. United States Postal Serv.
  823 F.2d 466· 11th Cir.· 1987-08-04 ·cited 42×
  The court held that the United States Arbitration Act (USAA) does not apply to labor arbitrations under the Postal Reorganization Act, and that the timeliness of suits to vacate arbitration awards should be governed by a uniform federal limitations period, borrowing the three-mon
• Hall v. Junior Sharpe
  812 F.2d 644· 11th Cir.· 1987-03-16 ·cited 42×
  A magistrate judge lacks jurisdiction to conduct a jury trial unless all parties expressly consent under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c); referrals under § 636(b)(1) or (b)(3) are insufficient authorization.
• Clulow v. State OF Okla.
  700 F.2d 1291· 10th Cir.· 1983-02-22 ·cited 42×
  The court held that the district court correctly dismissed the plaintiff's claims, affirming the dismissal of Counts One through Four as time-barred and Count Five for lack of jurisdiction and immunity, and Count Six for failure to state a claim.
• Bronze Shields, Inc. v. The NEW Jersey Dep't OF Civil Serv.
  667 F.2d 1074· 3d Cir.· 1981-12-01 ·cited 42×·via Equitable Tolling
  The court held that Title VII charges filed after the 180-day period following the promulgation of a discriminatory eligibility roster, but before the roster's use for hiring, were untimely. The court also held that claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1981 require proof of intentional discr
• Wright v. State OF Tenn.
  628 F.2d 949· 6th Cir.· 1980-08-11 ·cited 42×·via Equitable Tolling
  The Sixth Circuit en banc held that the 180-day notice requirement under the ADEA is not a jurisdictional prerequisite, allowing for equitable tolling, and overruled prior precedent to the contrary.
• United Brands Co. v. Thad Melson
  594 F.2d 1068· 5th Cir.· 1979-05-14 ·cited 42×
  The court held that the employer had sufficient knowledge of the work-related injury to toll the limitations periods and that the settlement with a non-liable third party did not bar the claim or require a reduction in federal award.
• Reberta Ingram v. Vijay S. Kumar
  585 F.2d 566· 2d Cir.· 1978-10-19 ·cited 42×
  The court held that an amendment correcting a misnomer relates back to the original filing date if the defendant received notice within the period allowed for service of process, even if that period extends beyond the statute of limitations.
• Reich v. DOW Badische Co. & Dow Chem. Co.
  575 F.2d 363· 2d Cir.· 1978-04-04 ·cited 42×·via Equitable Tolling
  The court held that the time limitations for filing a notice of intent to sue under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) are strict preconditions to filing a civil action, not statutes of limitation subject to equitable modification.
• Ashland OIL Co. OF Cal. v. Union OIL Co. OF Cal. & Dep't of Energy
  567 F.2d 984· Temp. Emer. Ct. App.· 1977-12-12 ·cited 42×
  The court held that the claim for actual overcharges is governed by California's three-year statute of limitations, while the claim for treble damages is governed by the one-year statute for penalties.