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

• Cross v. Gen. Motors Corp.
  778 F.2d 468· 8th Cir.· 1985-11-27
  The court held that the plaintiff's claims were time-barred under the applicable state statute of limitations and that the claims against the corporation were barred by res judicata.
• Smith v. United Parcel Serv., Inc.
  776 F.2d 99· 4th Cir.· 1985-08-26
  The court held that the six-month limitations period established in DelCostello v. International Brotherhood of Teamsters applies to suits alleging employer breach of a collective bargaining agreement and union breach of its duty of fair representation.
• Willcox v. The United States
  769 F.2d 743· Fed. Cir.· 1985-07-31
  The court held that the appellants failed to prove fraudulent concealment by the Air Force, and thus their claims were barred by the statute of limitations.
• Solomon Lieberman AND Chevra Lomdei Torah v. Interstate Fire & Cas. Co.
  768 F.2d 81· 3d Cir.· 1985-07-18
  The court held that the district court improperly granted summary judgment by deciding a disputed issue of material fact regarding when the mortgagee received notice of the insurer's denial of the mortgagor's claim.
• In re Martin-Trigona v. Anthony R. Martin-Trigona & 658 Ridge Rd., Inc.
  763 F.2d 503· 2d Cir.· 1985-05-23
  The court held that service by first-class mail was effective and that the district court did not abuse its discretion in entering a default judgment against appellants who failed to show good cause to set it aside.
• Redden Scoggins v. Honorable Willard H. Douglas, Jr.
  760 F.2d 535· 4th Cir.· 1985-04-29
  The court held that a voluntary dismissal under FRCP 41(a)(1) is equivalent to a Virginia nonsuit, requiring recommencement within six months to benefit from tolling provisions, and thus the plaintiff's claim was time-barred.
• In re Roanca Realty v. Roanca Realty, Inc.
  747 F.2d 816· 1st Cir.· 1984-11-07 ·via Equitable Tolling
  The court held that the appellants' failure to file their appeal within the ten-day limit prescribed by Bankruptcy Rule 802(a) was not excused by a claim of lack of notice, as they had sufficient actual knowledge of the proceedings.
• United States v. Laferrera
  340 F.2d 211· S.D. Fla.· 1984-10-25
  The court held that the seizure of weapons found during a search for evidence of electricity theft was unlawful because there was no probable cause to believe the weapons themselves were evidence of a crime, and the officers knew possession did not violate state law.
• Duncan v. H.M. Leeds
  742 F.2d 989· 6th Cir.· 1984-09-07
  The court held that the district court erred in dismissing the medical malpractice complaint as time-barred because the complaint adequately alleged fraudulent concealment, which tolls the statute of limitations.
• In re Ark. Cmtys., Inc. v. Ark. Cmtys., Inc.
  741 F.2d 185· 8th Cir.· 1984-08-20
  The court held that ACI's established adverse possession of the disputed tract prevented AP & L from obtaining relief, regardless of the true boundary line's location.
• Zahn v. Iowa Mfg. Co. OF Cedar Rapids
  740 F.2d 669· 8th Cir.· 1984-08-15
  The court held that the plaintiff's claim was time-barred because it was not filed within the six-month limitation period established in DelCostello v. International Brotherhood of Teamsters.
• Hemric v. Reed & Prince Mfg. Co.
  739 F.2d 1· 1st Cir.· 1984-07-05
  The court held that the plaintiff's tort action was barred by the Massachusetts statute of limitations because the district court properly applied Massachusetts law and the action was not timely under Massachusetts statutes.
• Winans v. Tampa BAY Buccaneers & Ins. Co. of N. Am.
  447 So. 2d 950· Fla. 1st DCA· 1984-03-14
  The court held that treatment by a physician no longer authorized by the employer, and treatment by a subsequent employer, did not toll the statute of limitations for a workers' compensation claim.
• Lambrecht v. Ford Motor Co.
  729 F.2d 1162· 8th Cir.· 1984-03-14 ·via Equitable Tolling
  The court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment, finding the claims barred by the statute of limitations.
• West v. Vill. OF Morrisville & Robert Bourne
  728 F.2d 130· 2d Cir.· 1984-02-14
  The court held that federal courts should abstain from deciding constitutional questions when complex state law issues that could moot the federal questions remain unresolved.
• Marine Midland Bank v. Surfbelt, Inc.
  718 F.2d 611· 3d Cir.· 1983-10-11
  A guarantor can invoke the protections of Pennsylvania's Deficiency Judgment Act when a creditor fails to follow its appraisal procedures after foreclosing on property securing a debt, even if the foreclosure involved a separate mortgage transaction.
• Mr. and Mrs. Theodore Norris, Sr. v. Bell Helicopter-Textron, Inc.
  712 F.2d 171· 5th Cir.· 1983-08-15
  The court held that the filing of a prior wrongful death action interrupted the statute of limitations for a subsequent property damage action arising from the same facts and asserting identical legal theories, even though the prior action was dismissed.
• United States v. Robert's Nursing Home, Inc.
  710 F.2d 1275· 7th Cir.· 1983-06-30
  The court held that the government's claim for Medicare overpayments accrued when the intermediary made a definitive demand for payment, not upon a later post-audit or final determination, thus barring the suit under the statute of limitations.
• Roberson v. Hewes
  701 F.2d 418· 5th Cir.· 1983-03-28
  A prisoner's civil rights action cannot be dismissed solely on the unsubstantiated speculation that they cannot effectively prosecute it while incarcerated.
• Cecil W. Perry, Inc. v. Lopez
  425 So. 2d 180· Fla. 1st DCA· 1983-01-18
  The court reversed a deputy commissioner's order tolling the statute of limitations for a workers' compensation claim, holding that the claim must be filed with the Division in Tallahassee within two years of the injury, and that receipt by a local deputy commissioner does not sa
• Weston v. Bachman
  682 F.2d 202· 8th Cir.· 1982-07-07
  The court held that the district court must determine whether Arkansas's saving statutes or equitable tolling principles apply to the plaintiff's initial filing of a complaint and motion to proceed in forma pauperis.
• Cap. City Excavating Co., Inc. v. Donovan
  679 F.2d 105· 6th Cir.· 1982-05-26 ·via Equitable Tolling
  The court held that receipt of a citation by an employee authorized to accept certified mail at corporate headquarters constitutes 'receipt' for the purpose of starting the 15-day contest period, even if the employee is not authorized to act on the citation.
• Metro. Dade Cnty. v. One (1) Bronze Cannon
  537 F. Supp. 923· S.D. Fla.· 1982-04-23
  The court held that it has subject matter jurisdiction over the salvage claim, that the action is a valid admiralty claim and not a disguised interpleader, and that the statute of limitations is tolled or waived. The motion to dismiss is denied.
• Hunt v. Broce Constr., Inc.
  674 F.2d 834· 10th Cir.· 1982-04-09 ·via Equitable Tolling
  The court held that the plaintiff's amended complaint naming the correct defendant relates back to the original filing date, allowing the action to proceed despite the statute of limitations.
• Rosetta Vaughan v. Johns-Manville Corp.
  662 F.2d 251· 4th Cir.· 1981-10-05
• Wyman v. Commercial Union Assurance Co.
  656 F.2d 603· 10th Cir.· 1981-08-14
  An insurance company does not have a duty to notify its beneficiaries of the statute of limitations to avoid the defense, as this duty is not supported by statute or case law.
• Phillips v. S. Bell Tel. & Tel. Co.
  650 F.2d 655· 5th Cir.· 1981-07-13 ·via Equitable Tolling
  The court held that a discriminatory act not made the basis of a timely charge is legally equivalent to an act occurring before the statute was passed and has no present legal consequences.
• Wash. GAS Light Co. v. Halley I. Thomas
  649 F.2d 275· 4th Cir.· 1981-05-22 ·via Tolling Provisions
  The court held that the Longshoremen's and Harbor Worker's Compensation Act (LHWCA) § 3(a) does not bar compensation for an injury occurring outside the District of Columbia if the District Act applies, and that the statute of limitations was tolled because the employer failed to
• Mueller v. City OF LOS Angeles Fire Dep't
  637 F.2d 616· 9th Cir.· 1980-08-22 ·via Equitable Tolling
  The court held that the plaintiff's Title VII action was properly dismissed because his charge was not timely filed with the EEOC within the statutory period.
• Custer v. The United States
  622 F.2d 554· Ct. Cl.· 1980-05-14 ·via Tolling Provisions
  The court held that the statute of limitations barred claims related to the '262 patent, and the A-10 aircraft did not infringe the '842 or '497 patents.
• Crawford v. Martin Marietta Corp. & Patrick Harrison, Inc.
  622 F.2d 339· 8th Cir.· 1980-05-12
  The court held that Arkansas law does not toll the statute of limitations for wrongful death actions for minors, and federal courts will not predict a state court would overturn settled precedent without strong indication.
• Ruzek v. City OF Hollywood
  384 So. 2d 155· Fla. 1st DCA· 1980-04-03
• In re Est. OF Clifford M. Jelley v. Hitt
  376 So. 2d 906· Fla. 2d DCA· 1979-11-09
  Katherine Stevens sought to enforce a judgment-creditor claim against the estate of Clifford Jelley. The trial court disallowed her claim as barred by a one-year statute of limitations under Florida Probate Code § 733.709. The appellate court reversed, holding that Stevens's moti
• Sigler v. Cmty. Hosp. OF NEW Port Richey & Copenhaver, Decker & Bell, M.D.'s, P.A.
  376 So. 2d 896· Fla. 2d DCA· 1979-11-07
  Where a medical mediation claim is filed against multiple defendants, a timely answer by one defendant tolls the statute of limitations and continues the mediation panel's jurisdiction over all defendants.
• Allegheny Mut. Ins. Co. v. State
  376 So. 2d 290· Fla. 3d DCA· 1979-10-30
  Allegheny Mutual Insurance Co., as surety on a criminal defendant's bond, appealed the forfeiture of the bond after the defendant failed to appear. The court reversed, holding that Florida law requires an information or indictment to be filed within six months of arrest as a prer
• Genesco, Inc. v. Cone Mills Corp.
  604 F.2d 281· 4th Cir.· 1979-07-27
  The court held that filing a lawsuit as a "next friend" in another state does not, under North Carolina law, constitute the appointment of a guardian ad litem sufficient to start the statute of limitations running against the infant's claim in North Carolina. The court also held
• Valenstein v. Doctors Hosp. & S. Peter Hansen Stokley, M.D.
  372 So. 2d 1169· Fla. 3d DCA· 1979-07-17
• Alec Rosefsky v. Commissioner OF Internal Revenue
  599 F.2d 515· 2d Cir.· 1979-06-12
  The court held that the partnership's election to defer capital gains under 26 U.S.C. § 1033 tolls the statute of limitations for the individual partners as well.
• Knox v. ELI Lilly & Co.
  592 F.2d 317· 6th Cir.· 1979-02-06
  The court held that the plaintiff's action was not barred by the statute of limitations because the Revised Judicature Act's changes to the tolling period were not retroactive to causes of action that accrued before its effective date, and the Age of Majority Act only changed the
• Kahn v. United States
  590 F.2d 48· 2d Cir.· 1978-12-28
  The court held that the statute of limitations for collecting an income tax deficiency was tolled while the taxpayer pursued appellate review of the Tax Court's decision without filing a bond.
• Concordia v. The United States Postal Serv.
  585 F.2d 731· 5th Cir.· 1978-12-04
  The court held that it does not have the power to grant the specific relief requested by the appellant regarding the tolling of the FECA statute of limitations.
• Garcia v. McLEAN
  355 So. 2d 504· Fla. 1st DCA· 1978-03-03
  In this adverse possession dispute, the court affirmed that a seven-year statute of limitations barred the appellant's ejectment action against the appellees who had built a fence on the appellant's land. The court held that the appellant's prior unsuccessful suit in equity to qu
• Walko Corp. v. Burger Chef Sys., Inc.
  568 F.2d 1389· D.C. Cir.· 1977-12-19
  The statute of limitations was not suspended during the pendency of the motion to intervene.
• Elliott v. Standard OIL Co. OF Tex.
  551 F.2d 986· 5th Cir.· 1977-05-09
  The court affirmed the district court's judgment, finding no error in its conclusions regarding racial discrimination.
• Wilson v. Kanter
  328 So. 2d 458· Fla. 4th DCA· 1976-03-12
  The Florida District Court of Appeal affirmed summary judgment against a plaintiff who filed a personal injury suit one day after the statute of limitations expired, holding that the statute of limitations was not tolled by the defendant's absence from Florida because the defenda
• Adelle L. Milton v. Landers
  371 So. 2d 673· Fla. 4th DCA· 1975-10-01
  A Florida appellate court reversed a summary judgment in a negligence action arising from an automobile accident, holding that the trial court improperly granted summary judgment when material facts regarding the defendant's residency status and amenability to service of process
• LEE v. Venice Work Vessels, Inc.
  512 F.2d 85· 5th Cir.· 1975-04-25
  A private cause of action for treble damages under antitrust laws does not survive against the heirs of a deceased wrongdoer after the estate has been administered and distributed.
• The Kan. City Mortg. Co. v. Burgess
  306 So. 2d 161· Fla. 4th DCA· 1975-01-17
  Kansas City Mortgage Company appealed the dismissal of its deceit action against James Burgess on statute of limitations and statute of frauds grounds. The Florida appellate court reversed, holding that the statute of frauds did not apply to a pure deceit claim and that the statu
• Miles v. Brand
  41 Fla. Supp. 99· Palm Beach Cty. Cir. Ct.· 1974-10-10
  In this 1974 Florida case, the court addressed whether the statute of limitations is tolled by filing a complaint without timely service of process. The court held that filing a complaint within the statutory period commences the action for limitations purposes, even if service i
• Fireman's Fund Ins. Co. & Luckenbach S.S. Co., Inc. v. Bergeron
  493 F.2d 545· 5th Cir.· 1974-05-01
  A deputy commissioner's written memorandum of an attorney's telephone call, indicating an intent to file for review of a compensation order, is sufficient to toll the one-year limitation period under 33 U.S.C. § 922.