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

• Neal v. State
  697 So. 2d 903· Fla. 2d DCA· 1997-07-18 ·cited 37×
  Billy Jean Neal sought a writ of prohibition to bar her criminal prosecution on statute of limitations grounds. The court held that the State failed to meet its burden of proving the prosecution was timely commenced, as service of the arrest warrant occurred more than five years
• Denny Lee London v. Coopers & Lybrand
  644 F.2d 811· 9th Cir.· 1981-05-07 ·cited 37×·via Equitable Tolling
  The court held that a plaintiff waives a Title VII claim by failing to include it in an amended complaint, and that post-discharge retaliatory conduct and adverse references can constitute violations of 42 U.S.C. § 1981.
• Hochfelder v. Midwest Stock Exch.
  503 F.2d 364· 7th Cir.· 1974-04-10 ·cited 37×·via Equitable Tolling
  The court held that the Midwest Stock Exchange did not breach its duty of self-regulation under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and therefore did not aid and abet the securities fraud perpetrated by Leston B. Nay.
• Johnson Serv. Co. v. Transamerica Ins. Co.
  485 F.2d 164· 5th Cir.· 1973-10-05 ·cited 37×
  The court held that Texas law does not preclude recovery on a separate labor and material bond even when a Hardeman Act bond has been posted, and that the work performed by the plaintiff was sufficient to toll the notice period under the bond.
• Musculoskeletal Inst. Chartered v. Parham
  745 So. 2d 946· Fla.· 1999-03-11 ·cited 36×
  The Florida Supreme Court held that a medical malpractice action is 'commenced' for purposes of the four-year statute of repose when a plaintiff files for an automatic 90-day extension of the statute of limitations under section 766.104(2) or serves a notice of intent to initiate
• Browning v. Hanna
  120 F.3d 222· 11th Cir.· 1997-08-22 ·cited 36×·via Equitable Tolling
  David Hanna, an AT&T employee, filed an age discrimination claim under the ADEA after the Civil Rights Act of 1991 changed the statute of limitations from two or three years to 90 days from EEOC termination. The Eleventh Circuit held that the new 90-day limitations period applied
• Grant v. Preferred Research, Inc.
  885 F.2d 795· 11th Cir.· 1989-09-29 ·cited 36×
  The court held that the plaintiff's fraud claim was barred by the statute of limitations and that the damages awarded for the contract claim were not supported by the evidence, requiring a new trial on that claim.
• Sanders v. Clemco Indus. & Ingersoll-Rand Co.
  862 F.2d 161· 8th Cir.· 1988-11-30 ·cited 36×
  The court held that the appeal of the summary judgment was untimely because the motion for reconsideration did not toll the appeal period, but the appeal of the denial of that motion was timely. The court affirmed the denial of the motion for reconsideration.
• Aragon v. Federated Dep't Stores, Inc.
  750 F.2d 1447· 9th Cir.· 1985-01-11 ·cited 36×
  The court held that the six-month statute of limitations under the NLRA applies retroactively to Aragon's claims, barring them, and that her malpractice claim against counsel was improperly dismissed.
• Daitom, Inc. v. Pennwalt Corp.
  741 F.2d 1569· 10th Cir.· 1984-08-17 ·cited 36×
  The dissenting judge would affirm the lower court's decision, finding that a contract was formed and that the warranty limitation period applied.
• Hrzenak v. White-Westinghouse Appliance Co.
  682 F.2d 714· 8th Cir.· 1982-07-02 ·cited 36×·via Equitable Tolling
  The court held that an employee's claim that he did not see a posted ADEA notice, standing alone, is insufficient to toll the statutory notice period when the employer has complied with posting regulations and the employee had reasonable access to the notice. The court also held
• King & King Enters. v. Champlin Petroleum Co.
  657 F.2d 1147· 10th Cir.· 1981-08-03 ·cited 36×
  The court held that the evidence overwhelmingly supported the finding of fraudulent concealment of price fixing activities, and the trial court correctly decided this issue as a matter of law, thus tolling the statute of limitations.
• Robertson v. Seidman & Seidman
  609 F.2d 583· 2d Cir.· 1979-08-29 ·cited 36×·via Equitable Tolling
  Summary judgment was improperly granted because genuine issues of material fact exist regarding whether the plaintiff exercised due diligence to discover the alleged fraud within the statute of limitations period.
• Smart v. Ellis Trucking Co., Inc.
  580 F.2d 215· 6th Cir.· 1978-07-25 ·cited 36×
  A wrongful discharge claim under § 301 of the LMRA is not barred by a prior arbitration decision if the employee can show the union breached its duty of fair representation, and such claims are governed by the state's general statute of limitations for tort actions.
• Garnatz v. Stifel
  559 F.2d 1357· 8th Cir.· 1977-11-01 ·cited 36×
  The court held that the damages awarded were correctly measured and supported by evidence, and that the plaintiff's action was timely filed under the applicable statute of limitations.
• Stull v. Bayard
  561 F.2d 429· 2d Cir.· 1977-08-26 ·cited 36×
  The court held that the plaintiff's securities fraud claim was time-barred by the statute of limitations, as it was filed more than six years after the cause of action accrued.
• Jankowitz v. The United States
  533 F.2d 538· Ct. Cl.· 1976-04-14 ·cited 36×
  The court held that the limitation period for False Claims Act penalties runs from the date of the 'act' as defined by the statute, even if this leads to seemingly absurd results.
• Verbale Hiscott v. Gen. Elec. Co.
  521 F.2d 632· 6th Cir.· 1975-09-04 ·cited 36×·via Equitable Tolling
  The court held that the notice requirement of the ADEA is a jurisdictional prerequisite and that the plaintiff's failure to provide timely notice to the Secretary of Labor requires dismissal.
• Johnson v. Ry. Express Agency, Inc.
  489 F.2d 525· 6th Cir.· 1973-11-27 ·cited 36×
  The court held that the thirty-day refiling period for a Title VII action dismissed without prejudice is jurisdictional, and the Tennessee Savings Statute does not apply. It also held that filing with the EEOC does not toll the statute of limitations for claims under 42 U.S.C. §
• Abelino Archuleta v. Duffy's Inc.
  471 F.2d 33· 10th Cir.· 1973-01-11 ·cited 36×
  The court held that the amended complaint naming Duffy's Inc. did not relate back to the original filing date because Duffy's Inc. did not receive notice of the action within the statutory period, and the naming of Denver Pop Company was not a misnomer but a substitution of parti
• Atkins v. Schmutz Mfg. Co.
  435 F.2d 527· 4th Cir.· 1970-12-10 ·cited 36×
  The court held that the Virginia statute of limitations did not bar the plaintiff's suit because it was a continuation of a timely filed Kentucky action.
• Highland Supply Corp. v. Reynolds Metals Co.
  327 F.2d 725· 8th Cir.· 1964-02-13 ·cited 36×
  The court held that the district court erred in dismissing the complaint with prejudice without affording the plaintiff an opportunity to amend, and that claims based on abuse of monopoly power might accrue within the statute of limitations.
• Nolan v. Transocean AIR Lines
  276 F.2d 280· 2d Cir.· 1960-03-02 ·cited 36×
  The court held that New York courts would apply California law to determine the age of majority for the purpose of its statute of limitations, and that the California rule regarding joint causes of action for wrongful death barred the minor's claim.
• Isaacks v. Jeffers
  144 F.2d 26· 10th Cir.· 1944-07-26 ·cited 36×
  The court held that the statute of limitations was not tolled because the plaintiffs failed to exercise reasonable diligence in serving the defendant.
• Allstate Ins. Co. & Allstate Indem. Co. v. Ginsberg
  863 So. 2d 156· Fla.· 2003-09-18 ·cited 35×
  The Florida Supreme Court answered a certified question from the Eleventh Circuit regarding whether unwelcome sexual conduct and comments in the workplace state a cause of action for invasion of privacy under Florida law. The Court held that such conduct does not constitute invas
• Landry v. AIR Line Pilots Ass'n Int'l AFL-CIO
  901 F.2d 404· 5th Cir.· 1990-01-31 ·cited 35×·via Equitable Tolling
  The court modified its prior opinion, withdrawing specific findings of law and holding that genuine issues of material fact exist regarding the retirement plan's effective date and a fiduciary duty to disclose.
• Baskin v. Hawley
  807 F.2d 1120· 2d Cir.· 1986-12-18 ·cited 35×
  The court held that the claim against Stright Sewage Disposal Company should not have been dismissed on statute-of-limitations grounds and remanded for trial, but affirmed the award of lost pension benefits against the Union while vacating the emotional distress award for a new t
• United States v. Sears
  785 F.2d 777· 9th Cir.· 1986-03-25 ·cited 35×
  A superseding indictment is timely if it does not broaden or substantially amend the original charges, and an appellate court may order a case reassigned to a different judge on remand for the appearance of justice.
• State v. Garofalo
  453 So. 2d 905· Fla. 4th DCA· 1984-08-08 ·cited 35×
  The statute of limitations is tolled by the filing of an original information when a second information based on the same incident is filed with a 'refile' notation, even if the second information names a different victim, provided the superceding information does not substantial
• Gilson v. The Republic OF Ireland
  682 F.2d 1022· D.C. Cir.· 1982-07-16 ·cited 35×
  The court held that while most claims were barred by the statute of limitations, two counts alleging commercial misdeeds could proceed as subject matter and personal jurisdiction were sufficiently alleged under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA).
• Davis v. Piper Aircraft Corp.
  615 F.2d 606· 4th Cir.· 1980-01-02 ·cited 35×
  The court held that North Carolina law, which requires qualification as a personal representative and filing of a complaint within two years for wrongful death actions, should be applied in federal court, making the action time-barred.
• Chavez v. Sec'y, Fla. Dep't OF Corr.
  742 F.3d 940· 11th Cir.· 2014-02-10 ·cited 34×·via Equitable Tolling
  Juan Carlos Chavez, a death row inmate scheduled for execution, appealed the district court's denial of his request for appointment of counsel to investigate and litigate claims based on Martinez v. Ryan. The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the denial, holding that Martinez creates onl
• Norris v. Wirtz
  818 F.2d 1329· 7th Cir.· 1987-05-11 ·cited 34×·via Equitable Tolling
  The suit is barred by the statute of limitations because the plaintiff knew or should have known of the fraud by November 1977, well before filing suit.
• Ciccarelli v. Carey Canadian Mines, Ltd.
  757 F.2d 548· 3d Cir.· 1985-03-12 ·cited 34×·via Equitable Tolling
  The court held that while the discovery rule does not apply to toll the statutes of limitation at issue, the doctrine of estoppel might, but the plaintiffs' offer of proof was insufficient to establish estoppel.
• McCLINTON v. Ala. By-Products Corp. & Ralph Stuckey
  743 F.2d 1483· 11th Cir.· 1984-10-11 ·cited 34×·via Equitable Tolling
  The employer's failure to post notice of ADEA rights tolls the 180-day filing period only until the employee gains general knowledge of their right not to be discriminated against based on age, or the means to acquire such knowledge.
• Wolfolk v. Rivera
  729 F.2d 1114· 7th Cir.· 1984-03-14 ·cited 34×·via Equitable Tolling
  The court held that the plaintiff alleged sufficient facts to fall within an exception to the thirty-day time limit for filing an administrative discrimination claim, based on when facts supporting the claim became apparent.
• Hyun Joon Chung v. Immigr. & Naturalization Serv.
  720 F.2d 1471· 9th Cir.· 1983-12-02 ·cited 34×
  The court held that the Board of Immigration Appeals' (BIA) original order denying adjustment of status in 1975 remains reviewable because the Chungs filed their petition for review within six months of the final BIA decision denying suspension of deportation. The court also affi
• Shankles v. Costa Armatori
  722 F.2d 861· 1st Cir.· 1983-11-23 ·cited 34×
  The court held that the passenger's claims were time-barred due to failure to comply with the ticket's notice and filing provisions, and that the district court correctly granted summary judgment.
• United States v. Macio Singleton
  702 F.2d 1159· D.C. Cir.· 1983-03-15 ·cited 34×
  The court held that sufficient evidence supported the jury's guilty verdicts for armed robbery, vacating the judgment of acquittal, but affirmed the dismissal of the failure to appear indictment as time-barred.
• Leonard Lawson (81-3722) v. Truck Drivers
  698 F.2d 250· 6th Cir.· 1983-01-17 ·cited 34×·via Equitable Tolling
  The court held that the 90-day Ohio statute of limitations for vacating arbitration awards applies to unfair representation actions against unions, and that this rule applies retroactively to pending cases.
• Nettie G. Carlile v. S. Routt Sch. Dist. RE 3-J
  652 F.2d 981· 10th Cir.· 1981-07-06 ·cited 34×·via Equitable Tolling
  The court held that while the 90-day filing requirement for Title VII actions is generally jurisdictional, the district court's order deeming the action commenced upon the filing of a motion to proceed in forma pauperis was binding, preventing dismissal based on the late filing.
• Major v. Ariz. State Prison
  642 F.2d 311· 9th Cir.· 1981-04-16 ·cited 34×
  The court held that the Arizona tolling statute should be applied to an imprisoned state prisoner's § 1983 claim, despite the majority's reasoning.
• Nielsen v. W. Elec. Co., Inc.
  603 F.2d 741· 8th Cir.· 1979-08-24 ·cited 34×·via Equitable Tolling
  The court held that the plaintiff's claim was barred by failure to file a timely notice of intent to sue, and that the proceeding below was properly treated as a trial on the merits of equitable tolling.
• Todosio Casias and Dorothy Casias v. United States
  532 F.2d 1339· 10th Cir.· 1976-04-02 ·cited 34×
  The court held that the appellant's medical malpractice claim was barred by the statute of limitations because it was not filed within two years of when the claimant discovered, or should have discovered, the alleged malpractice.
• Huston v. Gen. Motors Corp.
  477 F.2d 1003· 8th Cir.· 1973-04-25 ·cited 34×
  The court held that presenting a request for appointment of an attorney within the 30-day period specified in Title VII constitutes the bringing of a civil action, thereby tolling the statute of limitations.
• Decker v. Korth
  219 F.2d 732· 10th Cir.· 1955-02-08 ·cited 34×
  The court held that taxpayers must prove the exact amount of tax refund due, not just that the Commissioner's assessment was erroneous, and that the evidence presented did not sufficiently establish shrinkage losses to warrant a reversal.
• Overfield v. Pennroad Corp.
  146 F.2d 889· 3d Cir.· 1944-12-28 ·cited 34×
  The court held that shareholder derivative suits against individual directors and the Pennsylvania Railroad were barred by the Pennsylvania statute of limitations, as there was no affirmative concealment that would toll the statute. The court affirmed the judgment for individual
• Thomas v. Attorney Gen., State of Fla.
  992 F.3d 1162· 11th Cir.· 2021-03-31 ·cited 33×·via Equitable Tolling
  William Greg Thomas, a Florida death row inmate, challenged the timeliness of his federal habeas petition, which was filed nearly nine months after AEDPA's one-year deadline expired because his appointed counsel, Mary Catherine Bonner, deliberately delayed filing to use his case
• First Ala. Bank OF Montgomery, N.A. v. First State Ins. Co., Inc.
  899 F.2d 1045· 11th Cir.· 1990-04-27 ·cited 33×
  The court held that First Alabama's fraud claim was not barred by the statute of limitations and affirmed the district court's finding of fraud, but remanded for recalculation of prejudgment interest.
• Mondy v. Secretary OF THE Army
  845 F.2d 1051· D.C. Cir.· 1988-04-26 ·cited 33×
  The court held that the plaintiff's pro se complaint, filed timely and in forma pauperis, naming the head of the unit as defendant, commenced the action, and subsequent errors by the court and Marshal should not bar the suit.