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
-
A cardiologist challenged an insurance company's denial of his disability claim, alleging fraudulent claims practices through misuse of CPT codes in violation of RICO, but the court granted summary judgment for the insurance company because the plaintiff failed to establish equit
-
M.D. Fla.·
2024-12-09
The court held that the petitioner's habeas corpus petition was untimely filed under AEDPA, and dismissed the case with prejudice.
-
The court held that the petitioner's habeas corpus petition was untimely filed under AEDPA's one-year limitations period and dismissed the case.
-
The federal habeas petition is dismissed as time-barred because it was filed outside the one-year limitations period established by AEDPA, and no tolling or equitable exceptions apply.
-
The court held that the petitioner's motion to vacate his sentence was filed significantly outside the statutory limitations period.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2024-11-13
The court denied the motion for reconsideration because the petitioner failed to establish extraordinary circumstances and did not address the dispositive issue of whether his state motion was pending.
-
N.D. Fla.·
2024-11-12
The court held that the petitioner's federal habeas corpus petition was time-barred under AEDPA because it was filed more than three years after the one-year limitations period expired.
-
N.D. Fla.·
2024-10-28
The court held that plaintiffs failed to demonstrate predominance and superiority for a multi-state class action due to variations in state law, thus denying class certification.
-
The court held that the petitioner's federal habeas corpus petition was time-barred under AEDPA, as it was filed long after the one-year limitations period expired, even when accounting for potential tolling and a later start date based on alleged newly discovered evidence.
-
The federal habeas petition is dismissed as time-barred because it was filed more than one year after the petitioner's judgment became final, and neither statutory tolling, equitable tolling, nor the actual innocence exception applies.
-
The court denied the motion to proceed in forma pauperis because the appeal was not taken in good faith, as the sole issue raised was not preserved for appeal.
-
The court held that a successive federal habeas petition must be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction if the petitioner has not obtained authorization from the appropriate court of appeals.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2024-10-21
Jesse Alonso, a Florida prisoner, filed a pro se petition for federal habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging his conviction for resisting an officer with violence. The district court dismissed the petition as premature because Alonso had not exhausted available state co
-
M.D. Fla.·
2024-10-18
The court held that the petition for writ of habeas corpus was time-barred under AEDPA's one-year limitations period.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2024-10-16
The court held that the petitioner's habeas corpus petition was untimely filed and dismissed it because he failed to demonstrate actual innocence or any other basis for equitable tolling.
-
The federal habeas corpus petition was denied as untimely because it was filed outside the one-year limitations period prescribed by AEDPA, and no grounds for tolling or extension were established.
-
The court held that a pro se prisoner's motion to vacate sentence is untimely if not filed within the one-year statute of limitations, and vague claims without factual support are insufficient.
-
The court held that the petitioner's habeas corpus petition was untimely filed and dismissed it with prejudice.
-
The court held that a motion to vacate sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 is untimely if filed more than one year after the judgment of conviction became final, even if the motion raises jurisdictional challenges.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2024-09-26
The court held that the federal habeas petition was time-barred because the state post-conviction motion did not toll the limitations period, and the petitioner failed to establish actual innocence.
-
The court held that the movant's Section 2255 motion was time-barred because it was filed nearly 18 months after the one-year limitations period expired, and equitable tolling was not warranted.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2024-09-06
The court granted in part the motion to dismiss, dismissing the FMWA claim for being a shotgun pleading but denying dismissal of the TVPA claim.
-
The court held that the defendant's motion to vacate his conviction was untimely and therefore dismissed.
-
The court held that the applicant's petition for a writ of habeas corpus was untimely and therefore dismissed.
-
The court held that the petitioner's federal habeas corpus petition was time-barred under AEDPA, and her claims for equitable tolling were insufficient.
-
The court denied the plaintiff's motions for reconsideration because the arguments presented were either not grounds for reconsideration or did not establish extraordinary circumstances required for equitable tolling.
-
N.D. Fla.·
2024-08-21
The court held that the petitioner's federal habeas corpus petition was untimely filed under the AEDPA's one-year limitations period, and no exceptions applied.
-
N.D. Fla.·
2024-08-20
The court held that a federal habeas petitioner cannot obtain relief on a Fourth Amendment claim if the state provided a full and fair opportunity to litigate it, and that the petitioner's claims of ineffective assistance of counsel lacked merit because his underlying Fourth Amen
-
The court held that the petitioner must show cause for the untimeliness of his § 2255 motion, as the delay between signing and court receipt raises questions about the prison mailbox rule's applicability.
-
The court held that Shaquille O'Neal can be considered a 'seller' for Section 12(a)(1) claims due to his solicitations, and that Galaxy token claims are not time-barred, but some Astrals token claims are. The court also dismissed control person claims against O'Neal under Section
-
M.D. Fla.·
2024-08-15
The court held that the petitioner's habeas corpus petition was time-barred under AEDPA because it was filed more than two months after the expiration of the one-year limitations period.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2024-08-15
The court held that the habeas corpus application was untimely under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA) because the applicant's prior state post-conviction motion was dismissed as untimely and therefore did not toll the federal limitation period.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2024-08-15
The court held that a certification to file claims in federal court under Pretrial Order 72 was a tactical forum selection decision by counsel, not a release of claims requiring client consent.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2024-08-15
The court held that the plaintiffs' prior certifications to file in federal court under Pretrial Order 72 were tactical forum selection decisions by their counsel, not a release of claims requiring client consent.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2024-08-13
The court held that the petitioner's habeas corpus petition was untimely filed and failed to establish an actual innocence exception to the limitations period.
-
The court held that the plaintiff's lawsuit was untimely filed and that the complaint failed to state a claim for relief due to improper pleading and insufficient allegations of disability. Furthermore, service of process was deficient, depriving the court of jurisdiction.
-
The federal habeas petition is dismissed as time-barred because the petitioner failed to demonstrate diligence or extraordinary circumstances for equitable tolling, and the alleged new evidence does not establish actual innocence.
-
The court held that the petitioner's federal habeas corpus application was time-barred because his state post-conviction relief petition was not properly filed and thus did not toll the statute of limitations.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2024-07-22
The court held that the habeas corpus application was untimely filed and therefore dismissed.
-
The court held that the plaintiff's claims were untimely filed, as the statute of limitations began to run by May 31, 2019, and the complaint was filed over four years later.
-
The court granted the motion to dismiss, finding that most federal claims were time-barred due to failure to exhaust administrative remedies, and dismissed the state law claim for lack of supplemental jurisdiction.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2024-07-11
The court held that the applicant must consolidate his habeas corpus challenges into a single action and address timeliness and filing fee requirements.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2024-07-10
The court held that the petitioner's habeas corpus petition was untimely filed and dismissed it with prejudice.
-
The petition for a writ of habeas corpus is dismissed with prejudice as untimely filed.
-
The court held that the petitioner's habeas corpus petition was untimely filed and he failed to establish grounds for equitable tolling or actual innocence to overcome the procedural bar.
-
The court held that the petitioner's motion to vacate his conviction was time-barred under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act's one-year statute of limitations. The court also denied his motion to amend with additional claims, finding they did not relate back to th
-
M.D. Fla.·
2024-06-27
The court held that the petitioner's habeas corpus petition was time-barred and that his claim for equitable tolling based on the confiscation of his legal property was insufficient.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2024-06-21
Plaintiffs satisfied the fraudulent joinder standard by naming diversity-destroying defendants in state court filings after certifying under penalty of estoppel in Pretrial Order 72 that they would file in federal court, because the estoppel provision prevents them from prevailin
-
S.D. Fla.·
2024-06-21
The court held that plaintiffs' prior certifications to file in federal court under Pretrial Order 72 are binding and prevent them from arguing fraudulent joinder to achieve remand, as no motion to vacate these certifications has been filed.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2024-06-21
The court held that plaintiffs' prior certifications to file in federal court under Pretrial Order 72, under penalty of estoppel, bind them and prevent them from seeking remand to state court by naming non-diverse defendants.