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

• United States v. Neville
  985 F.2d 992· 9th Cir.· 1993-01-14
  A court's jurisdiction to revoke supervised release, initiated by an order to show cause during the release term, extends beyond the expiration of that term, and a defendant cannot unilaterally withdraw consent to a magistrate judge after validly giving it.
• Hefti v. Comm'r OF Internal Revenue OF the United States
  983 F.2d 868· 8th Cir.· 1993-01-08
  The court affirmed the Tax Court's decision, holding that Treas.Reg. § 301.7609-5(b) is a reasonable interpretation of 26 U.S.C. § 7609(e) and thus valid.
• Anaya v. Commissioner OF Internal Revenue
  983 F.2d 186· 10th Cir.· 1993-01-05
  The court held that the Commissioner is not required to prove a likely taxable source for unreported income when using the bank deposit method, and that the Tax Court properly considered evidence beyond the presumption of correctness to establish fraud.
• Brown v. Wigginton
  981 F.2d 913· 6th Cir.· 1992-12-21 ·via Tolling Provisions
  The court held that the plaintiff should have been given one year from the effective date of the repeal of the tolling statute to file her complaint.
• James J. Stumpf in Bankruptcy in the Matter of W. Dale Snover v. S.J. Albracht
  982 F.2d 275· 8th Cir.· 1992-12-14
  The court held that the trustee's claims for professional negligence and fraud were barred by the applicable statute of limitations because the debtors knew or reasonably could have known of the malpractice within the statutory period.
• Mayfield v. Simpson
  610 So. 2d 77· Fla. 1st DCA· 1992-12-10
• Jennings v. The City OF Homestead
  609 So. 2d 669· Fla. 3d DCA· 1992-11-24
• Mercado-Garcia v. Ponce Fed. Bank
  979 F.2d 890· 1st Cir.· 1992-11-19 ·via Equitable Tolling
  The court held that the plaintiff failed to establish claims for age discrimination under ECOA, breach of contract, COBRA violations, and ADEA, affirming the district court's grants of summary judgment and dismissals.
• Settle v. Fluker
  978 F.2d 1063· 8th Cir.· 1992-11-03
  The court held that Settle's legal malpractice action was barred by the statute of limitations because his claim accrued no later than September 7, 1982, when his motion for a new trial alleging ineffective assistance of counsel was denied.
• Concepcion Giove v. Stanko
  977 F.2d 413· 8th Cir.· 1992-10-02
  The court held that the district court's determination of fraudulent conveyances was not clearly erroneous and that the appeals were timely filed. The court affirmed the judgment setting aside transfers of property as fraudulent conveyances made after May 9, 1985.
• Iacono v. Off. OF Pers. Mgmt.
  974 F.2d 1326· Fed. Cir.· 1992-09-15 ·via Equitable Tolling
  The court held that the filing deadline in the Spouse Equity Act is a condition of eligibility, not a statute of limitations, and therefore cannot be equitably tolled.
• DOE v. DOE
  973 F.2d 237· 4th Cir.· 1992-08-10
  The court held that North Carolina's statute of limitations and period of repose bar the plaintiff's claims for intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress, and that the district court did not err in applying North Carolina law or in treating the motion as one to d
• Daugherity v. Traylor Bros., Inc.
  970 F.2d 348· 7th Cir.· 1992-08-06 ·via Equitable Tolling
  The court held that the district court erred in allowing the defendant to amend its answer to assert the affirmative defense of failure to exhaust administrative remedies due to undue delay and prejudice, but affirmed the summary judgment on the merits because the plaintiff faile
• Jarrett v. Kassel
  972 F.2d 1415· 6th Cir.· 1992-08-04 ·via Equitable Tolling
  The court held that the district court erred in granting summary judgment based on the statute of limitations, as the plaintiffs' claims under certain sections of the Commodity Exchange Act were not time-barred due to fraudulent concealment. However, claims under other sections w
• Polsby v. Chase
  970 F.2d 1360· 4th Cir.· 1992-07-29 ·via Equitable Tolling
  The court held that a former employee cannot bring a Title VII retaliation claim against a former employer for post-employment actions, and that Polsby's allegations did not support a RICO claim.
• Mareno v. JET Aviation OF Am.
  970 F.2d 1126· 2d Cir.· 1992-07-29
  The court affirmed the dismissal of the complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction but vacated the Rule 11 sanctions, remanding for reconsideration of sanctions based on federal filings.
• Arens v. G.R. Mfg. Co.
  968 F.2d 603· 6th Cir.· 1992-07-01 ·via Equitable Tolling
  The court held that the dismissal of the first action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction was proper, but the dismissal of the second action as time-barred was improper for six plaintiffs whose last work dates were not established.
• Pantoja v. Holland Motor Express, Inc.
  965 F.2d 323· 7th Cir.· 1992-06-03
  The court held that the plaintiff's hybrid claim under § 301 was time-barred by the six-month statute of limitations because his pursuit of internal union remedies was not formal enough to toll the period, and his retaliatory discharge claim failed for lack of evidence of a viola
• Weger v. Shell OIL Co.
  966 F.2d 216· 7th Cir.· 1992-05-19
  The court held that the plaintiffs' claims were barred by the statute of limitations because they knew or should have known of the injury and its potential wrongful cause more than two years before filing suit.
• Hamilton v. Komatsu Dresser Indus.
  964 F.2d 600· 7th Cir.· 1992-05-12 ·via Equitable Tolling
  The court held that the plaintiffs' claims under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act were untimely because they failed to file charges with the EEOC within the 300-day limitations period, and equitable estoppel did not apply.
• Freddy Taylor v. Metro. Dade Cnty.
  596 So. 2d 798· Fla. 1st DCA· 1992-04-08
  A workers' compensation claimant appealed the denial of his medical benefits claim on grounds that it was time-barred under Florida's two-year statute of limitations. The court reversed because the judge failed to consider whether the claimant's use of a prescribed back brace dur
• Saenz v. Keller Indus. OF Tex., Inc.
  951 F.2d 665· 5th Cir.· 1992-01-28
  The court held that reliance on a miscommunication with the district clerk's office, coupled with a failure to observe local rules, does not conclusively negate due diligence as a matter of law, thus raising a fact issue for the jury. The court also held that the discovery rule d
• United States v. Culver
  958 F.2d 39· 4th Cir.· 1991-11-22
  The court held that the Appellants' acknowledgments of the debt, including listing it on financial statements, were sufficient to restart the statute of limitations period, making the action timely.
• Held v. Davis
  778 F. Supp. 527· S.D. Fla.· 1991-11-19 ·via Equitable Tolling
  The court held that the limitation period established in Lampf v. Gilbertson applies retroactively to all claims not finally adjudicated, and that the plaintiffs' federal securities claims were time-barred under this new rule.
• Fed. Deposit Ins. Corp. v. Associated Nursery Sys., Inc.
  948 F.2d 233· 6th Cir.· 1991-10-30
  A partial payment on a debt restarts the statute of limitations against a guarantor if the guaranty agreement is a broad, continuing guaranty that allows the creditor to release collateral without notice or consent.
• Richardson v. Frank
  975 F.2d 1433· 10th Cir.· 1991-10-23 ·via Equitable Tolling
  The court held that genuine issues of material fact exist regarding whether the plaintiff's circumstances warrant equitable tolling or estoppel of the time limitations for filing an administrative complaint.
• Flores v. Louis W. Sullivan, M.D.
  945 F.2d 109· 5th Cir.· 1991-10-22 ·via Equitable Tolling
  The sixty-day period for filing a civil action challenging a Social Security Act denial begins to run from the claimant's receipt of notice, not the attorney's receipt of notice.
• United States v. Tri-State Ins. Co. OF Minn. & Transamerica Ins. Co.
  946 F.2d 581· 8th Cir.· 1991-10-01
  An anonymous tip is insufficient to trigger the statute of limitations until a reasonably prompt investigation either identifies the source as probably reliable or shows the information as probably accurate.
• Higgins v. NEW York Stock Exch., Inc.
  942 F.2d 829· 2d Cir.· 1991-08-26 ·via Equitable Tolling
  An antitrust cause of action accrues when the injury occurs, not when regulatory issues are resolved, and initiating administrative proceedings does not toll the statute of limitations unless it is a jurisdictional prerequisite.
• Fed. Deposit Ins. Corp. v. Urbanizadora Altomar, Inc.
  941 F.2d 1· 1st Cir.· 1991-07-24
  The court held that the FDIC's foreclosure action was time-barred because the statute of limitations was not tolled, and that a judicial sale was invalid due to insufficient notice.
• Simmons v. S. Cent. Skyworker's, Inc.
  936 F.2d 268· 6th Cir.· 1991-06-20
  The court held that the plaintiff's amended complaint adding a new party did not relate back to the original filing date because the new party did not receive notice of the action within the limitations period.
• Biros v. Spalding-Evenflo Co., Inc.
  934 F.2d 740· 6th Cir.· 1991-06-11
  The court held that it lacked jurisdiction over 90 unnamed plaintiffs and that ERISA is not the exclusive remedy, affirming the district court's determination of the accrual date for the § 301 cause of action.
• In re Placid OIL Co. v. Placid OIL Co.
  932 F.2d 394· 5th Cir.· 1991-05-31
  The court held that a plaintiff's claim is barred by the statute of limitations if, despite a misleading letter, a reasonable person would have investigated the circumstances and discovered the wrongful use of property.
• Rose v. Dole
  945 F.2d 1331· 6th Cir.· 1991-05-28 ·via Equitable Tolling
  The court held that the employee's request for equitable tolling of the limitations period for filing an unlawful termination complaint was properly denied because ignorance of the law and insufficient excuses for delay do not warrant tolling.
• Jacinto S. Pinat v. Off. OF Pers. Mgmt.
  931 F.2d 1544· Fed. Cir.· 1991-04-29 ·via Equitable Tolling
  The court held that the appeal was untimely because it was filed more than 30 days after the petitioner received notice of the Board's final decision.
• Vance v. Joseph B. Stevens, M.D.
  930 F.2d 661· 8th Cir.· 1991-04-19
  The court held that the plaintiff failed to establish a genuine issue of material fact regarding his mental disability tolling the statute of limitations, even if the Missouri tolling statute were unconstitutional as applied to the mentally disabled.
• Evans v. T.W. Servs.
  930 F.2d 612· 8th Cir.· 1991-04-11 ·via Equitable Tolling
  The court held that the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case for retaliation under Title VII and the MHRA, and her state law claim was time-barred, thus affirming the grant of summary judgment.
• Julianne Farrell and Edda Martin v. Bank OF NEW Hampshire-Portsmouth
  929 F.2d 871· 1st Cir.· 1991-04-08 ·via Equitable Tolling
  The statute of limitations for an Equal Credit Opportunity Act claim accrues from the date of the discriminatory occurrence, not from the date the aggrieved party receives notification of the act.
• Brennan v. Daley
  929 F.2d 346· 7th Cir.· 1991-04-08 ·via Equitable Tolling
  The court held that the statute of limitations for a Shakman claim was equitably tolled until the plaintiff discovered the key fact that the favored applicant had applied nearly a year after the deadline.
• Valley Transit MIX OF Ruidoso, Inc. v. Ira B. Miller
  928 F.2d 354· 10th Cir.· 1991-03-19
  The court held that a mechanics lien foreclosure claim against property owned by a non-debtor, but subject to a debtor's leasehold interest, is stayed by the automatic stay provisions of the Bankruptcy Code, thus tolling the statutory enforcement period.
• Banta v. Sullivan
  925 F.2d 343· 9th Cir.· 1991-02-06 ·via Equitable Tolling
  The Appeals Council's review of a claimant's submission of additional evidence to determine if it warrants reconsideration does not extend the time for filing a district court action.
• Smith v. Commissioner OF Internal Revenue
  925 F.2d 250· 8th Cir.· 1991-02-05
  The statute of limitations does not bar the Commissioner from assessing an increased tax deficiency when the taxpayer agreed to extend the assessment period and a Tax Court proceeding was pending, which tolled the limitations period.
• Harris v. Adm'r, Veterans Admin.
  924 F.2d 148· 8th Cir.· 1991-01-23 ·via Equitable Tolling
  The court held that the EEOC did not abuse its discretion in refusing to extend the filing deadline for an administrative appeal, and therefore summary judgment for the defendant was appropriate.
• Dahlberg v. Dr. David L. Harris, Interstate Med. Ctr., P.A.
  916 F.2d 443· 8th Cir.· 1990-10-10 ·via Tolling Provisions
  The Wisconsin borrowing statute, Wis.Stat. § 893.07, does not require the adoption of the commencement provision of the jurisdiction whose statute of limitations is borrowed; Wisconsin's commencement provision applies instead. The court reversed the grant of summary judgment.
• Ripplinger v. Amoco OIL Co.
  916 F.2d 441· 8th Cir.· 1990-10-10 ·via Equitable Tolling
  The court held that the one-year statute of limitations under the Petroleum Marketing Practices Act barred the plaintiff's claim because it was filed after the statutory deadline.
• Winnie H. Walker v. Thielen Motors
  916 F.2d 450· 8th Cir.· 1990-10-10
  In a diversity action, state procedural rules govern the commencement of an action for statute of limitations purposes, not the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
• Palm Beach Cnty. v. Gene A. Bernard & Assoc., Inc.
  566 So. 2d 886· Fla. 4th DCA· 1990-09-12
  The court held that a temporary injunction in a class action did not toll the statute of limitations for claims against potential class members who did not receive notice of the action.
• Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. United States Env't Prot. Agency
  908 F.2d 468· 9th Cir.· 1990-09-05
  The petition for review of the EPA's final order is time-barred because it was filed more than 90 days after the discovery of new grounds for challenge, and no applicable statute of limitations was met.
• Betancourt v. W.D. Schock Corp.
  907 F.2d 1251· 1st Cir.· 1990-07-11
  The court held that the plaintiff's claims were barred by the statute of limitations for hidden defects, as he could not relabel his action to avoid the shorter period.
• Barrs v. Louis W. Sullivan, M.D.
  906 F.2d 120· 5th Cir.· 1990-06-12 ·via Equitable Tolling
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to reinstate the case, as the plaintiff failed to timely file his action and did not demonstrate sufficient grounds for equitable tolling or relief under Rule 60(b).