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

• Stewart v. Dep't OF Corr. & Pub. Emps. Relations Comm'n (interested party)
  561 So. 2d 15· Fla. 4th DCA· 1990-05-09 ·via Equitable Tolling
  The trial court erred in not applying the doctrine of equitable tolling when appellant's attorney filed a notice of appeal one business day late.
• Goodluck v. Kelly Tractor Co.
  733 F. Supp. 1479· S.D. Fla.· 1990-03-27
  The court held that the plaintiff's second EEOC charge and subsequent lawsuit were not time-barred because the second charge alleged racial discrimination, making it materially different from the first charge which alleged retaliation and was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
• In re Ward v. Ward
  894 F.2d 771· 5th Cir.· 1990-02-22
  A law firm does not owe a tort-based duty to a bankruptcy court to inform it of a potentially unscheduled asset when it has no prior relationship with the court or trustee, and the award of attorney's fees requires reevaluation due to the uncertain collectability of the underlyin
• Clarke v. United States
  898 F.2d 162· D.C. Cir.· 1990-02-08
• Roque Cruz and Rosaura Cruz v. Carpenter
  893 F.2d 84· 5th Cir.· 1990-01-31
  The court held that the statute of limitations bars the derivative action because the cause of action accrued upon the sale of the corporation, and no tolling exceptions under Texas law apply.
• Norfolk & W. Ry. Co. v. Auto Club Ins. Ass'n
  894 F.2d 838· 6th Cir.· 1990-01-29
  The statute of limitations for property protection insurance benefits under Michigan's no-fault law can be judicially tolled from the date of notice of the claim until the insurer formally denies it, provided the insured acts with reasonable diligence.
• City OF W. Haven v. Commercial Union Ins. Co.
  894 F.2d 540· 2d Cir.· 1990-01-18
  The court held that the insurer's duty to defend was continuous and tolled the statute of limitations for claims arising from appeals that potentially invoked policy coverage, but not for claims where appeals were exhausted or not taken.
• Converse v. Gen. Motors Corp.
  893 F.2d 513· 2d Cir.· 1990-01-10
  In a federal diversity action, the state's rule for commencing an action, including its service of process requirements, governs for statute of limitations purposes, even if the action is filed before the statute expires.
• Mills v. United States
  890 F.2d 1133· 11th Cir.· 1989-12-18
  An employer's timely filed claim for FICA refunds or credits is sufficient to notify the IRS of an employee's potential claim, tolling the statute of limitations for the employee.
• Twashakarris, Inc. v. Immigr. & Naturalization Serv. OF the United States
  890 F.2d 236· 10th Cir.· 1989-11-22
  The court held that the plaintiffs' refiled complaint was untimely because their prior appeal and motions did not toll the one-year period provided by the Oklahoma savings statute.
• Mullen v. Sears
  887 F.2d 615· 5th Cir.· 1989-11-03
  Removing a suit to federal court does not relieve the plaintiff from complying with state service-of-process requirements integral to the state's statute of limitations, especially when venue was improper in the original state court.
• Vaughn L. Peete v. Am. Standard Graphic
  885 F.2d 331· 6th Cir.· 1989-09-19 ·via Equitable Tolling
  Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(e) does not extend the ninety-day period for filing a Title VII suit when the right-to-sue letter is mailed to the plaintiff.
• Ophelia B. Lindley and John J. Lindley v. George C. Hamilton, Jr., M.D.
  883 F.2d 360· 5th Cir.· 1989-09-15
  The court held that the district court properly granted summary judgment for the manufacturer as the claim was time-barred and that the judgment notwithstanding the verdict for the doctor was proper due to insufficient evidence of a breach of the standard of care.
• Hurwitz v. The United States & the Cent. Intelligence Agency
  884 F.2d 684· 2d Cir.· 1989-09-06
  New York law does not recognize a common law cause of action for intrusion upon privacy based on the unauthorized opening of mail, thus the Federal Tort Claims Act does not confer jurisdiction.
• Shook v. Gaston Cnty. Bd. OF Educ.
  882 F.2d 119· 4th Cir.· 1989-08-15
  The court held that the plaintiff had standing to sue under the E.H.A. because she was a creditor beneficiary of the insurance policy, and her claim was not time-barred due to tolling provisions for minority and incompetency.
• Flynt v. Brownfield
  882 F.2d 1048· 6th Cir.· 1989-08-14
  The court held that the legal malpractice claims were barred by the one-year Ohio statute of limitations because the attorney-client relationship terminated on February 16, 1982, over a year before the action was filed.
• Gomez v. Gov't OF the Virgin Islands
  882 F.2d 733· 3d Cir.· 1989-08-10 ·via Equitable Tolling
  The court held that the Virgin Islands Public Employee Labor Relations Act (PELRA) governs hybrid contract/fair representation actions, and the general Virgin Islands statutes of limitations apply, not the federal six-month period.
• Farmer v. Seiter
  884 F.2d 900· 6th Cir.· 1989-08-03
  The court held that the case should be remanded to the district court for reconsideration in light of a new Supreme Court decision.
• Universal Fabricators, Inc. v. Smith
  878 F.2d 843· 5th Cir.· 1989-07-31
  The court held that the respondent met both the status and situs requirements of the Longshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act (LHWCA) and that his claim was not barred by the statute of limitations due to payments made under state worker's compensation.
• Bell v. Cooper
  881 F.2d 257· 6th Cir.· 1989-07-27
  The court held that the Kentucky tolling statute applies to § 1983 actions filed before incarceration, even if filed while in prison.
• Zapp v. United Transp. Union
  879 F.2d 1439· 7th Cir.· 1989-07-07
  The court held that the plaintiffs failed to present sufficient evidence to establish that they discovered or could have discovered the collective bargaining agreement within the applicable six-month limitations period.
• Equal Emp. Opportunity Comm'n v. Rhone-Poulenc, Inc.
  876 F.2d 16· 3d Cir.· 1989-06-08
  The court affirmed the district court's interpretation of ADEA tolling and class action conciliation requirements.
• Zavala v. United States
  876 F.2d 780· 9th Cir.· 1989-06-05
  The court held that the Federal Tort Claims Act statute of limitations cannot be tolled for a minor plaintiff whose parent, despite alleged abandonment, had a duty and knowledge to file a claim within the statutory period.
• Reppy v. Dep't OF the Interior OF the United States
  874 F.2d 728· 10th Cir.· 1989-05-10
  A timely petition for reconsideration tolls the ninety-day limitations period for seeking judicial review of an agency's decision.
• Shamley v. ITT Corp.
  869 F.2d 167· 2d Cir.· 1989-03-01
  The court held that a partial final judgment under Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(b) can be entered to create res judicata effects in another forum, and that New York law, not New Jersey law, applied to the plaintiff's state law claims.
• Kyriakopoulos v. George Wash. Univ.
  866 F.2d 438· D.C. Cir.· 1989-01-13
  The court held that claims based on a prior decision are time-barred by the statute of limitations, and subsequent grievance proceedings do not toll this period unless they involve a new, distinct illegality.
• Berti v. V.A. Hosp.
  860 F.2d 338· 9th Cir.· 1988-10-26
  The court held that the six-month period to file an FTCA action begins on the date the agency mails the denial of the claim, not when the claimant actually receives it. A request for reconsideration must be received by the agency within six months of the denial mailing to toll th
• Indus. Inv. Dev. Corp. v. Mitsui & Co., Ltd.
  855 F.2d 222· 5th Cir.· 1988-09-20
  The court held that it had jurisdiction, the evidence supported the jury's findings, and the district court properly ruled on the claims, affirming the judgment.
• Lansburgh v. United States
  699 F. Supp. 279· S.D. Fla.· 1988-08-26 ·via Suspension Of Statute Of Limitations
  The court held that the IRS assessment was timely because the statute of limitations was suspended by operation of law under 26 U.S.C. § 6503(a) until 60 days after the Tax Court's decision became final, notwithstanding the taxpayer's waiver of the prohibition against assessment.
• Cobb v. K.A. Nizami
  851 F.2d 730· 4th Cir.· 1988-07-15
  The jury's finding that Howard Cobb was insane and that the statute of limitations should be tolled is supported by sufficient evidence.
• Bridgeman v. Neb. State PEN
  849 F.2d 1076· 8th Cir.· 1988-06-14
  The court held that the plaintiff's alleged mental disorder did not toll the statute of limitations beyond the period of his confinement, as there was no evidence he was unable to understand his legal rights.
• Bassey Udom v. Fonseca
  846 F.2d 1236· 9th Cir.· 1988-05-20
  The court held that the district court abused its discretion by dismissing the case with prejudice for a minor delay in filing an amended complaint, and that the tolling claim could not be addressed without the amended complaint.
• Stowik v. Nour Sirker, M.D.
  522 So. 2d 106· Fla. 4th DCA· 1988-03-23
  A plaintiff with a medical malpractice claim against a hospital and other defendants appealed a summary judgment dismissing her action based on the statute of limitations and failure to comply with Florida's pre-suit screening procedures. The court held that the statutory screeni
• United States v. O'Neal
  834 F.2d 862· 9th Cir.· 1987-12-22
  The court held that the indictment was timely because the complaint was filed within the statute of limitations and the grand jury schedule prevented an indictment, and that severance was not required as the jury could compartmentalize evidence.
• O.J. Vincent v. A.C. & S., Inc.
  833 F.2d 553· 5th Cir.· 1987-12-07
  The court held that the district court's March 15, 1984 order was not a voluntary dismissal under Louisiana law, thus the statute of limitations was tolled.
• The Corp. OF Mercer Univ. v. Nat'l Gypsum Co.
  832 F.2d 1233· 11th Cir.· 1987-11-23
  The Eleventh Circuit certified a question to the Georgia Supreme Court regarding the applicability of the discovery rule to property damage claims when there is no statute of repose but allegations of willful concealment of hazardous defects.
• AETNA Cas. & Sur. Co. v. Fernandez
  830 F.2d 952· 8th Cir.· 1987-10-09
  The court held that the appellant's claim was barred by the Missouri statute of limitations and that sanctions under Rule 11 were appropriate for filing suit after being notified of the defense.
• Luise M. Ross v. Colo. Outward Bound Sch., Inc.
  822 F.2d 1524· 10th Cir.· 1987-07-13
  The court held that under 28 U.S.C. § 1631, an action transferred to cure a lack of jurisdiction proceeds as if filed in the transferee court on the date it was filed in the transferor court, thus tolling the statute of limitations.
• Barfield v. Anheuser Busch and Mike Parsons
  815 F.2d 516· 8th Cir.· 1987-04-07
  The court held that the plaintiff's claim was barred by the statute of limitations because the employment decision was made and communicated in April 1979.
• Marholin v. Kaye
  503 So. 2d 950· Fla. 3d DCA· 1987-03-03
• Carbone v. Gulf OIL Corp.
  812 F.2d 1416· Temp. Emer. Ct. App.· 1987-01-23
  The court held that the district court erred in dismissing the action as barred by the statute of limitations, as the claim for overcharges under the ESA is compensatory, not penal, and the applicability of treble damages and attorney fees requires further adjudication.
• Peterson v. Fuller Co.
  807 F.2d 151· 8th Cir.· 1986-12-17 ·via Equitable Tolling
  Product liability actions are barred by the statute of repose when the injury occurs more than ten years after the product was first sold, and equitable tolling is unavailable in such cases.
• City OF Clearwater v. Hilton J. Holzhauer
  497 So. 2d 694· Fla. 1st DCA· 1986-10-30
  The City of Clearwater appeals a workers' compensation order awarding medical care to Holzhauer, arguing his claim was barred by the statute of limitations since it was filed over two years after an MMI (maximum medical improvement) determination. The court affirms, holding that
• Langager v. Lake Havasu Cmty. Hosp.
  799 F.2d 1354· 9th Cir.· 1986-09-16
  The court held that the medical malpractice claim was time-barred due to concession, and the spoliation of evidence claim was also time-barred under the applicable two-year statute of limitations.
• Nat'l Treas. Emps. Union v. Fed. Labor Relations Auth.
  798 F.2d 113· 5th Cir.· 1986-07-16
  The court held that the Union had constructive notice of the dress code policy more than six months before filing its charge, making the charge untimely.
• Sevako v. Anchor Motor Freight, Inc.
  792 F.2d 570· 6th Cir.· 1986-06-05
  A claim for a continuing improper practice causing separate and recurring injuries accrues anew with each violation, but only acts within six months of suit are actionable.
• Syrian Arabian OIL Co. v. Syrian Arab Republic
  791 F.2d 602· 7th Cir.· 1986-05-29
  A dissolved corporation lacks the capacity to file a new lawsuit after the statutory period for winding up its affairs has expired.
• Allen v. Robert T. Hoover, M.D.
  489 So. 2d 1160· Fla. 5th DCA· 1986-05-08
  The court held that professional associations are not required to be named in a mediation claim for malpractice, as their liability is vicarious, but an individual father must participate in mediation to preserve his own claim.
• KEY v. Gillette Co.
  782 F.2d 5· 1st Cir.· 1986-01-24
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in decertifying the class because the plaintiff's representation was inadequate.
• Petersen v. Glad
  780 F.2d 359· 3d Cir.· 1985-12-30
  The court held that the filing of a proposed complaint with the Medical Malpractice Action Review Committee tolls the statute of limitations, and the ninety-day period following the expert opinion is an extension of that toll, not a new limitations period.