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

• Appleton Elec. Co. v. Graves Truck Line, Inc.
  635 F.2d 603· 7th Cir.· 1980-11-25 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the statute of limitations was tolled for unnamed defendants in a class action suit, and that the default judgments were not void or excessive under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The court also found no abuse of discretion in denying a Rule 60(b) motio
• Fletcher v. Union Pac. R.R. Co.
  621 F.2d 902· 8th Cir.· 1980-05-07 ·cited 30×
  The court held that a continuing tort extending into the statutory period, but unaccompanied by injury within that period, does not bring forward pre-period injuries to toll the statute of limitations.
• Dir., Off. of Workers' Comp. Programs, United States Dep't of Labor v. Nat'l van Lines
  613 F.2d 972· D.C. Cir.· 1979-11-13 ·cited 30×
  The court should dismiss the petitions for review due to lack of subject matter jurisdiction, as the injury occurred in New York, not the District of Columbia.
• Raedel v. Watson Clinic Found., Inc.
  360 So. 2d 12· Fla. 2d DCA· 1978-05-26 ·cited 30×
  The court held that a medical mediation panel's jurisdiction terminates six months after a claim is filed if no hearing begins by that time, even when the parties stipulate to an extension order within the initial 120-day period. The court reversed the dismissal of the plaintiffs
• del Valle v. Aponte
  575 F.2d 321· 1st Cir.· 1978-05-10 ·cited 30×
  The court held that an employee's attorney's letters demanding reinstatement, without seeking monetary damages, did not toll the statute of limitations under Puerto Rico law for a § 1983 claim.
• United States v. Cyphers
  556 F.2d 630· 2d Cir.· 1977-02-08 ·cited 30×·via Tolling Provisions
  The court held that a claim under Article IV(e) of the Interstate Agreement on Detainers is a pre-trial defense that is waived if not raised before trial, and the defendant had sufficient knowledge to be on notice of this claim.
• Ciccarone v. United States
  486 F.2d 253· 3d Cir.· 1973-10-18 ·cited 30×
• Douglass v. Glenn E. Hinton Invs., Inc.
  440 F.2d 912· 9th Cir.· 1971-02-17 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the general fraud statute of limitations for Washington, which tolls until discovery, should apply to federal securities claims, rather than a more recently enacted state securities statute with a different accrual rule.
• Mathis v. The United States
  391 F.2d 938· Ct. Cl.· 1968-03-15 ·cited 30×
  The court held that a claim for illegal military discharge accrues at the time of removal, not at the end of administrative proceedings, and that optional administrative remedies do not toll the statute of limitations.
• Jaben v. United States
  333 F.2d 535· 8th Cir.· 1964-06-16 ·cited 30×
  A complaint filed by an IRS agent, detailing an investigation and stating personal knowledge of the offense, is sufficient to toll the statute of limitations.
• Sanseverino v. United States
  321 F.2d 714· 10th Cir.· 1963-08-22 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the statute of limitations was tolled, prior transactions were admissible to show intent, summary exhibits were permissible, character witness testimony was properly limited, and jury instructions were adequate.
• Pub. Serv. Co. OF NEW Mexico v. Gen. Elec. Co.
  315 F.2d 306· 10th Cir.· 1963-03-15 ·cited 30×
  Fraudulent concealment of a cause of action under the Clayton Act tolls the applicable statutes of limitations, as this equitable doctrine is read into every federal statute of limitations unless Congress expressly provides otherwise.
• Atl. City Elec. Co. v. Gen. Elec. Co.
  312 F.2d 236· 2d Cir.· 1962-12-31 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the Clayton Act, Section 4B, does not contain a discovery rule for fraudulent concealment, and courts should not judicially insert one that Congress rejected.
• Phillips Petroleum Co. v. Johnson
  155 F.2d 185· 5th Cir.· 1946-02-01 ·cited 30×
  The court clarified that the parties' conduct and circumstances defined the 'use' of gas under their contract, and that an accounting action could proceed at law. The statute of limitations for breach of contract runs from when installments are due, unless fraudulent concealment
• In re Engle Cases 4432 Individual Tobacco v. Various Tobacco Cos.
  767 F.3d 1082· 11th Cir.· 2014-09-10 ·cited 29×
  The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the dismissal of 588 personal injury cases filed on behalf of deceased smokers, 160 loss of consortium cases derived from those personal injury cases, and 2 wrongful death cases filed outside the statute of limitations. The Wilner Firm filed these ca
• Lugo v. Sec'y, Fla. Dep't OF Corr.
  750 F.3d 1198· 11th Cir.· 2014-04-24 ·cited 29×·via Equitable Tolling
  Daniel Lugo, a Florida death-row inmate, appealed the dismissal of his federal habeas corpus petition as time-barred under the one-year statute of limitations in 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d), and also appealed the denial of his Rule 60(b) motion seeking to vacate that dismissal. The Eleve
• In re Hill
  715 F.3d 284· 11th Cir.· 2013-04-22 ·cited 29×·via Equitable Tolling
  The dissenting opinion argues that the state of Georgia should not be allowed to execute Warren Lee Hill, a mentally retarded individual, despite procedural bars under AEDPA. The dissent emphasizes that the Eighth Amendment categorically prohibits the execution of mentally retard
• Joseph Ovadia, M.D. v. Bloom
  756 So. 2d 137· Fla. 3d DCA· 2000-03-01 ·cited 29×
  Dr. Ovadia sued NBC and others for defamation and related torts based on a 1993 broadcast. After filing in federal court and being dismissed for lack of diversity jurisdiction, he refiled in state court after the two-year statute of limitations had expired. The court affirmed sum
• Merkle v. Robinson
  737 So. 2d 540· Fla.· 1999-07-08 ·cited 29×·via Tolling Provisions
  The significant relationship test applies to Florida statute of limitations choice-of-law questions under section 95.11, and the forum must apply the statute of limitations of the state with the most significant relationship to the parties and occurrence when that statute would p
• Rhoades v. Sw. Fla. Reg'l Med. Ctr.
  554 So. 2d 1188· Fla. 2d DCA· 1989-12-08 ·cited 29×
  The court held that a claimant has 60 days or the remainder of the statute of limitations period, whichever is greater, to file suit after the expiration of the 90-day tolling period, regardless of whether the parties stipulated to an extension.
• Osborn Levert Caldwell v. Martin Marietta Corp.
  632 F.2d 1184· 5th Cir.· 1980-12-15 ·cited 29×
  An action under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure commences upon the filing of a complaint, without the additional requirement of diligent service of process. The filing of a complaint tolls the statute of limitations.
• Rogers Hamilton v. Gen. Motors Corp.
  606 F.2d 576· 5th Cir.· 1979-11-14 ·cited 29×·via Equitable Tolling
  The court held that the appellant's claims were time-barred and that he failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination for the 1974 hiring, thus affirming the district court's decision.
• Solve E. D'Ippolito v. Cities Serv. Co.
  374 F.2d 643· 2d Cir.· 1967-03-09 ·cited 29×
  The court held that the dismissal of individual plaintiffs from the antitrust action was erroneous, reversing and remanding for their reinstatement, but denied a petition for mandamus to compel the filing of a second amended complaint.
• Chavez v. State
  132 So. 3d 826· Fla.· 2014-01-31 ·cited 28×·via Equitable Tolling
  Juan Carlos Chavez, a death row inmate, appealed the denial of his second successive motion for post-conviction relief filed shortly before his scheduled execution. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the denial of all claims, including challenges to lethal injection procedures, c
• Davidson v. Bd. OF Governors OF State Colleges & Univs. FOR W. Ill. Univ.
  920 F.2d 441· 7th Cir.· 1990-12-13 ·cited 28×·via Equitable Tolling
  The court held that while the district court should not have dismissed the suit solely on timeliness without considering equitable tolling, the complaint fails to state a claim under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act because it does not allege that the university discrimin
• Jensen v. Frank
  912 F.2d 517· 1st Cir.· 1990-08-27 ·cited 28×·via Equitable Tolling
  The court held that the plaintiff failed to timely contact an Equal Employment Opportunity counselor within the required 30-day period after his termination, and his arguments for equitable tolling or a continuing violation were unavailing.
• Stamatina Stallcop v. Kaiser Found. Hosps.
  820 F.2d 1044· 9th Cir.· 1987-06-23 ·cited 28×·via Equitable Tolling
  State law claims arising from a collective bargaining agreement are preempted by Section 301 of the LMRA and are subject to a six-month statute of limitations, and equitable modification is not warranted without evidence of excusable ignorance or deceptive conduct.
• Hardin v. City Title & Escrow Co.
  797 F.2d 1037· D.C. Cir.· 1986-08-08 ·cited 28×·via Equitable Tolling
  The court held that the one-year limitation period in 12 U.S.C. § 2614 is a jurisdictional prerequisite to suit and is not subject to equitable tolling.
• Felty v. Graves-Humphreys Co.
  785 F.2d 516· 4th Cir.· 1986-03-07 ·cited 28×·via Equitable Tolling
  The court held that the majority erred by introducing a new factual theory of intimidation not raised by the parties, which contradicted the record and undermined the ADEA's limitations period.
• Janowiak v. The Corporate City OF S. Bend
  750 F.2d 557· 7th Cir.· 1984-12-06 ·cited 28×·via Equitable Tolling
  The court held that a statistical disparity between minority population and department representation alone is insufficient to justify an affirmative action program under Title VII or the Fourteenth Amendment.
• Gieringer v. A.A. Silverman
  731 F.2d 1272· 7th Cir.· 1984-04-12 ·cited 28×·via Equitable Tolling
  The court held that summary judgment was appropriate to resolve the statute of limitations defense, as the plaintiffs' deposition testimony indicated they had sufficient notice of potential fraud upon receiving the offer letter, and their claims for equitable tolling and estoppel
• Burton M. Abrams and Marguerite M. Abrams v. Interco Inc.
  719 F.2d 23· 2d Cir.· 1983-09-28 ·cited 28×
  A judgment on the merits in favor of a plaintiff is final and appealable under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 even if statutory attorneys' fees remain undetermined. Denial of class certification is reviewed for abuse of discretion, but this standard is flexible and allows for reversal if the d
• Glenann Wilkerson v. Siegfried Ins. Agency, Inc.
  683 F.2d 344· 10th Cir.· 1982-07-23 ·cited 28×·via Equitable Tolling
  The court held that the employer's actions did not constitute active misleading or misrepresentation sufficient to equitably toll the statutory filing deadlines for age and sex discrimination claims.
• Perez v. Universal Eng'g Corp.
  413 So. 2d 75· Fla. 3d DCA· 1982-03-30 ·cited 28×
  Employees sued manufacturers for negligence-based injuries from manganese poisoning caused by welding machines installed decades earlier. The court reversed summary judgment dismissing the case on statute of limitations grounds, holding that the constitutional twelve-year bar can
• Sch. Dist. OF the City OF Allentown v. Marshall
  657 F.2d 16· 3d Cir.· 1981-08-06 ·cited 28×
  The court held that while the time limitation for filing a complaint under the Toxic Substances Control Act is not jurisdictional, the Secretary of Labor erred in tolling the period without adequate basis, requiring the dismissal of the complaint.
• Biggans v. Bache Halsey Stuart Shields, Inc.
  638 F.2d 605· 3d Cir.· 1980-12-31 ·cited 28×·via Equitable Tolling
  The statute of limitations applicable to common law fraud actions, rather than the Pennsylvania Securities Act, governs suits claiming damages for churning under federal securities laws.
• Avondale Shipyards, Inc. v. Vinson
  623 F.2d 1117· 5th Cir.· 1980-08-15 ·cited 28×·via Tolling Provisions
  The court held that the employer's failure to file an injury report tolled the statute of limitations and that the admission of an ex parte medical report was permissible. The court modified the award to remove a statutory limitation on liability based on recent amendments.
• O'Hara v. Kovens
  625 F.2d 15· 4th Cir.· 1980-07-16 ·cited 28×
  The court held that the statute of limitations for federal securities fraud claims should be borrowed from Maryland's blue sky law, not common law fraud, and that incompetency does not toll the statute under Maryland law.
• Rubin v. O'Koren
  621 F.2d 114· 5th Cir.· 1980-07-07 ·cited 28×
  The court held that the plaintiff's administrative grievance did not toll the statute of limitations, but that the district court erred in dismissing the case with prejudice, allowing the plaintiff to amend her complaint to plead the estoppel defense with particularity.
• Paxman v. Campbell
  612 F.2d 848· 4th Cir.· 1980-01-02 ·cited 28×
  The maternity leave policies requiring pregnant teachers to cease teaching at mandatory times violated the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment under Cleveland Board of Education v. LaFleur. School board members sued in their individual capacities are entitled to qualif
• Moorey v. Eytchison & Hoppes, Inc.
  338 So. 2d 558· Fla. 2d DCA· 1976-10-20 ·cited 28×
  The court held that the amended complaint naming Mobil was timely filed, as the statute of limitations period extended to the next business day when the final day fell on a Saturday. The court rejected Mobil's argument that a new statute changed the method of computation.
• Haas v. Pittsburgh Nat'l Bank
  526 F.2d 1083· 3d Cir.· 1975-09-25 ·cited 28×
  The Pennsylvania General Assembly did not intend to prohibit the use of the previous balance method under the Goods and Services Installment Sales Act.
• Hinton v. CPC Int'l, Inc.
  520 F.2d 1312· 8th Cir.· 1975-07-17 ·cited 28×·via Equitable Tolling
  The court held that the 90-day period for filing a Title VII action after receiving an EEOC right-to-sue notice is a jurisdictional prerequisite, and failure to comply deprives the federal court of subject matter jurisdiction.
• Harris v. Nat'l TEA Co.
  454 F.2d 307· 7th Cir.· 1971-12-21 ·cited 28×
  The court held that a petition for appointment of counsel, even if filed within the 30-day period, does not commence a civil action under Title VII, and the 30-day limitation period is jurisdictional and must be strictly adhered to.
• Kington v. United States
  396 F.2d 9· 6th Cir.· 1968-06-11 ·cited 28×
  The court held that the plaintiff's claim for negligent death accrued at the time of death, not upon discovery of the cause of death, and was therefore time-barred by the FTCA's two-year limitation period.
• Sw. Inv. Co. v. Cactus Motor Co., Inc.
  355 F.2d 674· 10th Cir.· 1966-01-03 ·cited 28×
  The court held that Southwestern Investment Company was liable for VSI insurance premiums collected from dealers without obtaining the insurance, and that the statute of limitations was tolled by fraudulent concealment.
• Sheets v. Burman
  322 F.2d 277· 5th Cir.· 1963-09-05 ·cited 28×
• United States v. Ueber
  299 F.2d 310· 6th Cir.· 1962-02-27 ·cited 28×
  The court held that the statute of limitations for a False Claims Act violation begins to run upon the presentation of a false claim to the government, not upon the conception of the fraudulent scheme. It also held that each false voucher submitted to the government constitutes a
• Davant v. Coachman Props., Inc.
  118 So. 2d 844· Fla. 2d DCA· 1960-03-16 ·cited 28×
  The court held that the grounds presented by the plaintiff were insufficient to establish good cause for reinstatement of a cause dismissed for want of prosecution.
• Shambow v. Shambow
  149 Fla. 278· Fla.· 1942-01-09 ·cited 28×
  This Florida Supreme Court case addresses the procedural requirements for an administrator's personal claim against the estate they administer. The court held that an administrator's claim must be proven by competent evidence and cannot be automatically allowed merely because no