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

• Am. Int'l Underwriters v. The Cont'l Ins. Co.
  843 F.2d 1253· 9th Cir.· 1988-04-13 ·cited 33×·via Equitable Tolling
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in abstaining from hearing the case under the Colorado River doctrine and in dismissing the repetitive lawsuit, as exceptional circumstances justified abstention and prevented the plaintiff from circumventing rem
• Zuniga v. United CAN Co.
  812 F.2d 443· 9th Cir.· 1987-03-06 ·cited 33×
  The court affirmed the trial court's decision, finding that the plaintiff's failure to exhaust internal union remedies was properly excused due to futility and timeliness concerns, and that substantial evidence supported the jury's verdicts against both the employer and the union
• Hyatt v. Heckler
  807 F.2d 376· 4th Cir.· 1986-12-05 ·cited 33×·via Equitable Tolling
  The court held that the principles of Bowen v. City of New York regarding waiver of administrative exhaustion and equitable tolling of the 60-day review period apply to claimants denied benefits due to the Social Security Administration's policy of nonacquiescence in circuit law,
• Geyen v. Marsh
  775 F.2d 1303· 5th Cir.· 1985-11-05 ·cited 33×
  The court held that Geyen's claim challenging his activation and hardship discharge denials is barred by the six-year statute of limitations, but his claim challenging the Army Board for Correction of Military Records' decision is not time-barred or barred by laches.
• Hackbart v. Holmes
  675 F.2d 1114· 10th Cir.· 1982-04-19 ·cited 33×
  Reckless conduct satisfies the scienter requirement for a Rule 10b-5 violation, and the trial court's findings of recklessness, statute of limitations, and damages were not clearly erroneous.
• Olivene G. Glass v. Camara
  369 So. 2d 625· Fla. 1st DCA· 1979-03-20 ·cited 33×
  The plaintiff, widow of a deceased patient, appealed a summary judgment dismissing her wrongful death medical malpractice suit as time-barred. The Florida appellate court reversed, holding that under the 1975 amendments to the statute of limitations, the defendant-physician must
• Sperry v. Barggren
  523 F.2d 708· 7th Cir.· 1975-09-02 ·cited 33×·via Equitable Tolling
  The court held that a genuine issue of material fact existed regarding whether the plaintiffs could have discovered the alleged fraud with due care, thus reversing the summary judgment.
• Executive JET Aviation, Inc. v. United States
  507 F.2d 508· 6th Cir.· 1974-12-12 ·cited 33×
  The court held that the insurers, despite not filing their own administrative claim, are real parties in interest and the statute of limitations is tolled because Executive Jet's timely and complete administrative claim provided sufficient notice to the government.
• Blair v. Page Aircraft Maint., Inc.
  467 F.2d 815· 5th Cir.· 1972-09-28 ·cited 33×
• Kelly v. State Ex Rel. Morgan
  54 So. 2d 431· Fla.· 1951-10-16 ·cited 33×
  The Florida Supreme Court reversed a lower court's order discharging a defendant from prosecution. The Court held that a mistrial counts as a trial under the speedy trial statute, and continuances granted for good cause can toll the statute's time limits.
• Dora A. Sullivan under the last will and testament of J. J. Sullivan, Sr. v. Stokes
  99 Fla. 1295· Fla.· 1930-06-06 ·cited 33×
  The Florida Supreme Court reversed a judgment against an estate on an open account for medical services, finding insufficient evidence of a promise to pay that would toll the statute of limitations.
• Vallone v. Local Union NO. 705
  755 F.2d 520· 7th Cir.· 1984-12-19 ·cited 32×
  The court held that the six-month statute of limitations, applicable to Section 301 claims, also applies to claims under Title I of the LMRDA, and that the plaintiffs' claims were time-barred.
• Casimir W. Dyniewicz v. United States
  742 F.2d 484· 9th Cir.· 1984-09-07 ·cited 32×·via Equitable Tolling
  The court held that while the agency's denial letter was defective for failing to inform claimants of the six-month filing period, the claim was nevertheless time-barred because it was not filed with the agency within two years of accrual.
• Platoro Ltd., Inc. v. The Unidentified Remains OF A Vessel
  695 F.2d 893· 5th Cir.· 1983-01-20 ·cited 32×
  The Texas legislature's resolution waived Eleventh Amendment immunity for federal court, and Platoro is entitled to a salvage award, but only for its one-third share as a joint venturer.
• Poolaw v. The City OF Anadarko
  660 F.2d 459· 10th Cir.· 1981-09-25 ·cited 32×
  The court held that a property interest in employment is not required for a claim of racial discrimination under 42 U.S.C. § 1981, and that a claim for discriminatory refusal to reinstate under Title VII is timely if filed within 180 days of the refusal, not the original discharg
• Rubin v. O'Koren
  644 F.2d 1023· 5th Cir.· 1981-05-11 ·cited 32×
  The court held that the plaintiff's cause of action was timely because the alleged civil rights violations continued until the university grievance committee upheld her dismissal.
• FOX v. The Eaton Corp.
  615 F.2d 716· 6th Cir.· 1980-02-21 ·cited 32×·via Class Action Tolling
  The court held that the 90-day time period for filing a Title VII claim should not be tolled in this case.
• Ula Cutliff v. Greyhound Lines
  558 F.2d 803· 5th Cir.· 1977-09-02 ·cited 32×
  The court held that the § 1981 claims were barred by the statute of limitations and the Title VII claims failed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction due to insufficient proof of filing with the EEOC.
• Williams v. Walsh
  558 F.2d 667· 2d Cir.· 1977-06-27 ·cited 32×
  The court held that the plaintiff's § 1983 action was time-barred by the borrowed Connecticut tort statute of limitations, and that neither the equitable claim for reinstatement nor tolling of the statute were applicable.
• Walko Corp. v. Burger Chef Sys., Inc.
  554 F.2d 1165· D.C. Cir.· 1977-03-02 ·cited 32×
  The court held that the question of whether a statute of limitations was suspended during the pendency of a motion to intervene is a matter of state law, and certified this question to the Maryland Court of Appeals.
• Charlotte Telecasters, Inc. v. Jefferson-Pilot Corp.
  546 F.2d 570· 4th Cir.· 1976-12-10 ·cited 32×
  The court held that Telecasters' antitrust claim was barred by the statute of limitations because the last overt act occurred more than four years before the action was filed, and Telecasters failed to establish fraudulent concealment or that damages were unascertainable.
• The Akron Presform Mold Co. v. McNEIL Corp. & Sun Corp.
  496 F.2d 230· 6th Cir.· 1974-04-11 ·cited 32×
  The court held that the district court did not err in dismissing the antitrust actions as barred by the statute of limitations, and in one case, by collateral estoppel.
• Jhirad v. Ferrandina
  486 F.2d 442· 2d Cir.· 1973-10-24 ·cited 32×
  The government must demonstrate an intent to flee from prosecution or arrest to toll the statute of limitations under 18 U.S.C. § 3290.
• Emmett J. Stebbins v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co.
  469 F.2d 268· 4th Cir.· 1972-11-08 ·cited 32×·via Equitable Tolling
  The court held that the plaintiff's action was not timely filed and there was no basis for tolling the statute of limitations due to his intentional disregard of venue provisions.
• H. L. Peterson Co. v. Applewhite
  383 F.2d 430· 5th Cir.· 1967-09-01 ·cited 32×
  The court held that the district court had jurisdiction over Peterson, the counterclaim was not barred by the statute of limitations, and Peterson committed legal fraud. The measure of damages was not erroneous.
• George v. Douglas Aircraft Co., Inc.
  332 F.2d 73· 2d Cir.· 1964-04-28 ·cited 32×
• Pa. Co. for Insurances on Lives & Granting Annuities v. Deckert
  123 F.2d 979· 3d Cir.· 1941-11-19 ·cited 32×
  The court held that the injunction paralyzing the trusts was premature and too drastic, and that the suit could not be maintained as a hybrid class action on the current record due to inadequate representation and unresolved issues regarding limitations.
• The Franklin Life Ins. Co. v. Tharpe
  131 Fla. 213· Fla.· 1938-02-23 ·cited 32×
  Franklin Life Insurance Company appealed a decision requiring it to pay disability benefits under a policy issued to Virginia Tharpe's deceased husband. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the beneficiary's lack of knowledge of the policy tolled the statute of limita
• Soffer v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co.
  106 So. 3d 456· Fla. 1st DCA· 2012-10-24 ·cited 31×·via Class Action Tolling
  In this Engle-progeny wrongful death case, the court addresses whether class members can pursue punitive damages under negligence and strict liability theories, which were not timely asserted in the original Engle class action. The court holds that progeny plaintiffs cannot asser
• THE Florida BAR v. Bartley Charles Miller
  863 So. 2d 231· Fla.· 2003-10-02 ·cited 31×·via Equitable Tolling
  The Florida Bar disciplined attorney Bartley Charles Miller for engaging in a pattern of deliberate deception and concealment of evidence during federal litigation over his client's employment discrimination claim. The Florida Supreme Court approved the referee's findings of guil
• Gray v. Phillips Petroleum Co.
  858 F.2d 610· 10th Cir.· 1988-09-30 ·cited 31×·via Equitable Tolling
  The court held that the EEOC's actions in scheduling a meeting date beyond the limitations period constituted active misleading, entitling the plaintiffs to equitable tolling of the 180-day filing period.
• Pinkie J. Boddy v. Dean
  821 F.2d 346· 6th Cir.· 1987-06-18 ·cited 31×·via Equitable Tolling
  The Sixth Circuit held that the 30-day time limit for contacting an EEO counselor is not a jurisdictional prerequisite and is subject to equitable tolling, and that Count II of the amended complaint related back to the original complaint under Rule 15(c).
• Frandsen v. Brotherhood OF Railway
  782 F.2d 674· 7th Cir.· 1986-01-24 ·cited 31×
  The court held that the six-month statute of limitations for duty of fair representation claims is tolled during the pursuit of internal union remedies, even if those remedies are ultimately found to be futile.
• United States v. Mitchell
  769 F.2d 1544· 11th Cir.· 1985-09-03 ·cited 31×
  The court held that dismissal of an indictment sealed beyond the statute of limitations requires a showing of actual prejudice to the defendant, not presumed prejudice.
• Espinoza v. Mo. Pac. R.R. Co.
  754 F.2d 1247· 5th Cir.· 1985-03-11 ·cited 31×·via Equitable Tolling
  The court held that the ninety-day period for filing suit begins when the right-to-sue notice is received at the claimant's designated address, unless equitable tolling applies.
• Adolph W. Schmidt v. The Polish People's Republic
  742 F.2d 67· 2d Cir.· 1984-08-16 ·cited 31×
  The court held that plaintiffs cannot raise a new choice-of-law argument on appeal and that the action is time-barred under New York's statute of limitations.
• Cardio-Medical Assocs., Ltd. v. Crozer-Chester Med. Ctr. & James H. Loucks, M.D.
  721 F.2d 68· 3d Cir.· 1983-11-18 ·cited 31×
  The court held that plaintiffs adequately alleged a substantial and adverse effect on interstate commerce to withstand a motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, but affirmed the striking of their jury demand due to waiver.
• United States v. Bazzano
  712 F.2d 826· 3d Cir.· 1983-06-17 ·cited 31×
  The judgment of the district court is affirmed. The Fourth Amendment exclusionary rule does not apply to probation revocation proceedings. The district court had the power to revoke probation even after the statutory period expired, as proceedings were commenced within the period
• Campbell v. The Upjohn Co.
  676 F.2d 1122· 6th Cir.· 1982-04-29 ·cited 31×·via Equitable Tolling
  The court held that the plaintiff's claim was barred by the statute of limitations because he failed to demonstrate the requisite diligence in discovering his cause of action, even if fraudulent concealment was alleged.
• Ward v. Caulk
  650 F.2d 1144· 9th Cir.· 1981-07-17 ·cited 31×·via Equitable Tolling
  The court held that the availability of a federal statutory remedy, such as 42 U.S.C. § 1983, precludes a constitutional cause of action against state defendants, even if the plaintiff fails to timely pursue the statutory remedy. It also held that a continuing violation requires
• The Crummer Co. & R. E. Crummer & Co. v. DU Pont
  255 F.2d 425· 5th Cir.· 1958-05-08 ·cited 31×
  The court held that the plaintiffs presented sufficient facts to raise a genuine issue of material fact regarding fraudulent concealment, entitling them to a jury trial on that issue.
• Torres v. Superintendent OF the Police OF Puerto RICO
  893 F.2d 404· 1st Cir.· 1990-01-08 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the plaintiffs' Section 1983 claim for wrongful termination was time-barred because the administrative action did not toll the statute of limitations, and their malicious prosecution claim failed because the alleged conduct did not rise to the level of a const
• Bell v. Veterans Admin. Hosp.
  826 F.2d 357· 5th Cir.· 1987-09-02 ·cited 30×·via Equitable Tolling
  The court held that the appellant failed to name the proper party defendant within the statutory limitations period, and the complaint could not be amended to relate back under Rule 15(c).
• Mull v. Arco Durethene Plastics, Inc.
  784 F.2d 284· 7th Cir.· 1986-02-24 ·cited 30×·via Equitable Tolling
  The court held that the 180-day limitations period for filing an ADEA claim begins to run when the employee receives unequivocal notice of termination, regardless of whether the notice is oral or written, and that equitable tolling or estoppel are not warranted in this case.
• Bailey v. Carnival Cruise Lines, Inc.
  774 F.2d 1577· 11th Cir.· 1985-11-04 ·cited 30×
  Filing a suit under the Death on the High Seas Act in state court does not toll the running of a contractual time bar for an exclusively federal claim.
• Fed. Deposit Ins. Corp. v. Petersen
  770 F.2d 141· 10th Cir.· 1985-08-06 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the federal statute of limitations, not the Illinois statute, applied and barred the FDIC's claim against the guarantors.
• Vaught v. R.R. Donnelley & Sons Co.
  745 F.2d 407· 7th Cir.· 1984-08-08 ·cited 30×·via Equitable Tolling
  The court held that the plaintiff's EEOC filing was untimely because he knew or should have known facts supporting a discrimination charge more than 180 days before filing, and equitable tolling did not apply.
• Margo Bouchet v. The Nat'l Urban League, Inc.
  730 F.2d 799· D.C. Cir.· 1984-03-23 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the district court properly declined pendent jurisdiction over state law claims due to their predominance and that the statute of limitations barred the state law claims, thus affirming the judgments.
• Smallwood v. United AIR Lines, Inc.
  661 F.2d 303· 4th Cir.· 1981-10-08 ·cited 30×·via Equitable Tolling
  The court held that the airline's age-35 hiring limit for pilots was not a bona fide occupational qualification (BFOQ) and reversed the trial court's decision.
• Alonzo v. ACF Prop. Mgmt., Inc.
  643 F.2d 578· 9th Cir.· 1981-03-09 ·cited 30×
  Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(a) does not apply to toll the statute of limitations in a diversity case when the last day to file falls on a holiday; state law governs the computation of time for statutes of limitations. The case is remanded for determination of whether a Pres