Tolling Provisions

101 Florida cases classified under this topic · sorted by citation count · see the citation graph · browse and sort

• Justino Lugo Vega v. THE S.S. Malula
  291 F.2d 415· 5th Cir.· 1961-06-16 ·cited 63×
  The court held that the equitable doctrine of laches should not bar the libel because the respondent failed to demonstrate sufficient prejudice from the delay, especially given the clear unseaworthiness of the vessel.
• Cheryll Gray v. Lacke
  885 F.2d 399· 7th Cir.· 1989-09-22 ·cited 60×
  The court held that res judicata does not bar individual-capacity claims against employees, collateral estoppel does not apply to unaddressed constitutional claims, and Wisconsin's six-year personal rights statute of limitations applies to § 1983 actions.
• Proudfoot Consulting Co. v. Gordon
  576 F.3d 1223· 11th Cir.· 2009-07-30 ·cited 53×
  Proudfoot Consulting Company sued former employee Derrick Gordon for breaching restrictive covenants in his employment agreement after he joined Highland, a direct competitor, in June 2006. The district court found all restrictive covenants enforceable under Florida law, granted
• Kaiser v. Cahn
  510 F.2d 282· 2d Cir.· 1974-12-19 ·cited 48×
  The court affirmed the grant of summary judgment, holding that the plaintiff's claim was untimely because New York law, as applied under federal common law, does not permit 'tacking' of tolling periods after a release from imprisonment.
• Fla. Birth-Related Neurological Injury Comp. Ass'n v. Jaimes McKAUGHAN and Darlene McKaughan
  668 So. 2d 974· Fla.· 1996-02-29 ·cited 47×
  The Florida Supreme Court held that the NICA plan does not vest exclusive jurisdiction in an administrative hearing officer to determine whether a newborn's injury qualifies as a birth-related neurological injury when a medical malpractice action is filed in circuit court and the
• SUN Shipbuilding & DRY Dock Co. v. McCABE
  593 F.2d 234· 3d Cir.· 1979-02-22 ·cited 44×
  The court held that claims are barred by the statute of limitations and notice provisions of the Longshoremen's and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act because the employer did not have sufficient notice of the specific injuries.
• Amendments to the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure
  773 So. 2d 1098· Fla.· 2000-10-05 ·cited 43×
  This is a Florida Supreme Court order adopting proposed amendments to the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, submitted by the Civil Procedure Rules Committee. The court approves substantive amendments to multiple rules and forms, effective January 1, 2001.
• Sys. Mgmt. Assocs., Inc. v. State
  391 So. 2d 688· Fla. 1st DCA· 1980-11-04 ·cited 40×
  Systems Management Associates challenged a hearing officer's denial of its petition for rule determination under Florida's Administrative Procedure Act (APA), arguing that the deletion of a prohibition against motions for reconsideration from the revised Model Rules of Procedure
• Matilde R. Ramirez de Arellano v. de Choudens
  575 F.2d 315· 1st Cir.· 1978-05-10 ·cited 38×
  The court held that the plaintiff's claim was time-barred because the prior mandamus action did not toll the statute of limitations for her § 1983 claim. The court also found that the plaintiff's due process rights were not violated.
• United States v. Cyphers
  556 F.2d 630· 2d Cir.· 1977-02-08 ·cited 30×
  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.
• Merkle v. Robinson
  737 So. 2d 540· Fla.· 1999-07-08 ·cited 29×
  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
• Avondale Shipyards, Inc. v. Vinson
  623 F.2d 1117· 5th Cir.· 1980-08-15 ·cited 28×
  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.
• United States v. Robertson
  810 F.2d 254· D.C. Cir.· 1987-01-27 ·cited 26×
  The court held that a District of Columbia arrest does not trigger the Speedy Trial Act's 30-day indictment limit, and that delays related to transportation and overdue pretrial motion responses are excludable under the Act's tolling provisions.
• Denis Henry v. Richardson-Merrell, Inc.
  508 F.2d 28· 3d Cir.· 1975-01-22 ·cited 25×
  The court held that New Jersey's choice of law principles mandate applying Quebec's statute of limitations, dismissing the suit as time-barred.
• MAY v. Enomoto
  633 F.2d 164· 9th Cir.· 1980-11-19 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the statute of limitations was tolled and that the plaintiff failed to present evidence of deliberate indifference to serious medical needs, thus affirming the directed verdict.
• Miller v. Smith
  615 F.2d 1037· 5th Cir.· 1980-04-21 ·cited 24×
  The court held that federal courts should honor state statutes of limitations, including their tolling provisions, unless they are inconsistent with federal law.
• SUN Shipbuilding & DRY Dock Co. v. Bowman
  507 F.2d 146· 3d Cir.· 1975-01-02 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the employer lacked knowledge of the employee's work-related hearing loss, barring compensation claims due to untimely filing and notice.
• Nagle v. LEE
  807 F.2d 435· 5th Cir.· 1987-01-08 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the dismissal of the first suit for failure to prosecute was an adjudication on the merits under Rule 41(b), barring the second suit against Sheriff Lee, but not against officers Laura and Montecino who were not parties to the first suit.
• Ringrose v. Engelberg Huller Co., Inc.
  692 F.2d 403· 6th Cir.· 1982-11-02 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the case must be remanded to determine if the amended complaint naming successor corporations relates back to the original filing date under Rule 15(c).
• Ortiz v. LaVALLEE
  442 F.2d 912· 2d Cir.· 1971-03-25 ·cited 20×
  The court held that New York's tolling statute for imprisoned persons applies even if they have legal capacity to sue, thus the inmate's civil rights claim was not time-barred.
• Giles v. Garwood
  853 F.2d 876· 11th Cir.· 1988-08-30 ·cited 19×
  The court held that the appellant's § 1983 action was barred by the statute of limitations and that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to disqualify the judge.
• Maurer v. Individually & AS Members OF LOS Angeles Cnty. Sheriff's Dep't
  691 F.2d 434· 9th Cir.· 1982-10-25 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the district court erred in dismissing the civil rights action for damages without allowing the plaintiff to amend his complaint to allege tolling of the statute of limitations due to the defendant's absence from the state. The court also held that the distric
• Childers v. Cape Canaveral Hosp., Inc.
  898 So. 2d 973· Fla. 5th DCA· 2005-03-04 ·cited 16×
  The Fifth District Court of Appeal affirmed the dismissal of a wrongful death action brought on behalf of a four-year-old child for the death of his mother from misdiagnosed ovarian cancer. The court held that the statute of repose exception in section 95.11(4)(b), Florida Statut
• United States v. Karsseboom
  871 F.2d 877· 9th Cir.· 1989-03-31 ·cited 16×
  If a trial court dismisses some but not all counts of an indictment and the defendant is reindicted on the dismissed counts, the retained count and the superseding indictment both inherit the Speedy Trial Act clock applied to the original indictment.
• Strachan Shipping Co. & Am. Mut. Ins. Co. v. Davis
  571 F.2d 968· 5th Cir.· 1978-04-24 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the "knowledge" required to trigger exceptions to the time limitations under the Longshoremen's and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act means knowledge that the illness is job-related, not merely knowledge of the existence of an illness.
• Pearson v. Gatto
  933 F.2d 521· 7th Cir.· 1991-05-23 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the district court should have liberally construed the pro se plaintiff's letter as an amended complaint, and that the district court did not abuse its discretion in allowing a late notice of appeal.
• Earvin Smith v. State
  211 So. 3d 176· Fla. 3d DCA· 2016-12-21 ·cited 13×
  Earvin Smith appeals his convictions for armed sexual battery and armed burglary committed in 1990 but prosecuted in 2011 after a DNA match. The court affirmed the sexual battery conviction but reversed the burglary conviction as time-barred by the statute of limitations, and cer
• Novitsky v. Michael H. Hards, D.D.S.
  589 So. 2d 404· Fla. 5th DCA· 1991-11-14 ·cited 12×
  The Novitskys appealed a summary judgment dismissing their dental malpractice claim against Dr. Hards on statute of limitations grounds. The court reversed, holding that the notice of intent to sue letter sent to Dr. Hards on January 10, 1989 properly triggered tolling periods un
• Argonaut Ins. Co. v. Patterson
  846 F.2d 715· 11th Cir.· 1988-06-08 ·cited 12×
  The dissenting judge would hold Liberty Mutual Insurance Company responsible for the full disability award based on the 'last injurious exposure' rule.
• DOE v. Sinrod
  90 So. 3d 852· Fla. 4th DCA· 2012-05-30 ·cited 10×
  Jane Doe appealed the dismissal of her negligence claims against the Palm Beach County School Board arising from sexual abuse by a teacher in 2003. The court affirmed dismissal because Doe failed to comply with the four-year statute of limitations under Florida's sovereign immuni
• Bonifacio Gonzalez-Ramos v. State
  46 So. 3d 67· Fla. 5th DCA· 2010-05-28 ·cited 10×
  Gonzalez-Ramos appeals his violation of probation adjudication and 48-month prison sentence, arguing the trial court lacked jurisdiction because the violation process was not initiated before his probation term expired on July 14, 2007. The court held that once a probation term e
• Saltponds Condo. Ass'n, Inc. v. Walbridge Aldinger Co.
  979 So. 2d 1240· Fla. 3d DCA· 2008-04-30 ·cited 10×
  The Third District Court of Appeal reversed the trial court's dismissal of a condominium association's amended complaint alleging construction defects. The court held that the complaint should not have been dismissed on statute of limitations grounds because multiple tolling prov
• Seawatch AT Marathon Condo. Ass'n, Inc. v. Charley Toppino & Sons, Inc.
  610 So. 2d 470· Fla. 3d DCA· 1992-11-03 ·cited 10×
  The Third District Court of Appeal addresses whether section 718.124's tolling provision applies to construction defect claims brought by a condominium association as class representative of unit owners. The court holds that the tolling statute extends the limitations period for
• J.M. Martinac Shipbuilding v. Dir., Off. OF Workers Comp. Programs
  900 F.2d 180· 9th Cir.· 1990-04-02 ·cited 10×
  The employer was not bound by the healthcare provider's inaccurate legal advice regarding the statute of limitations, but the claim was timely because the limitations period did not begin until the claimant discovered his permanent disability.
• Hatfield v. Bishop Clarkson Mem'l Hosp.
  701 F.2d 1266· 8th Cir.· 1983-03-17 ·cited 10×
  The court certified the question of whether a Nebraska statute of limitations for professional negligence is tolled during a minor's infancy to the Nebraska Supreme Court.
• Palmina C. Gianni v. Fort Wayne AIR Serv., Inc.
  342 F.2d 621· 7th Cir.· 1965-02-11 ·cited 9×
  The court held that the Indiana statute of limitations should have been applied to the wrongful death actions, reversing the dismissal of the complaints.
• Thomas v. Fernando Lopez, M.D.
  982 So. 2d 64· Fla. 5th DCA· 2008-04-18 ·cited 8×
  Sarah Thomas, as plenary guardian of her adult daughter Tammy, appealed a summary judgment dismissing a medical malpractice claim as time-barred. The court reversed, holding that the statute of limitations did not commence until Thomas was appointed guardian, because an incapacit
• Peninsular Props. Braden River, LLC v. City OF Bradenton
  965 So. 2d 160· Fla. 2d DCA· 2007-08-01 ·cited 8×
  Peninsular Properties challenged a trial court's dismissal of its petition for writ of certiorari seeking to overturn the City of Bradenton's rejection of a planned development application. The trial court dismissed as untimely but Peninsular argued the time to file should have b
• Pergrem v. William Horan, M.D.
  669 So. 2d 1150· Fla. 5th DCA· 1996-03-22 ·cited 8×
  The appellate court reversed a summary judgment, holding that the plaintiff's medical malpractice lawsuit was timely filed because the statute of limitations was tolled during the presuit investigation period and provided an extended filing window.
• ONG v. Mike Guido Props.
  668 So. 2d 708· Fla. 5th DCA· 1996-03-01 ·cited 8×
  On motion for rehearing, the Fifth District Court of Appeal vacated its prior order denying attorney's fees and granted Mike Guido Properties' motion for attorney's fees, holding that the tolling provision in section 44.102(6)(a) unconstitutionally infringes on the judiciary's ru
• United States for the Use of Am. Bank v. C.I.T. Constr. Inc. OF Tex.
  944 F.2d 253· 5th Cir.· 1991-10-15 ·cited 8×
  The one-year period for filing a Miller Act claim is a limitational period, not a jurisdictional prerequisite, and 28 U.S.C. § 1352 provides subject matter jurisdiction. However, the claim was still time-barred.
• United States v. Cephas
  937 F.2d 816· 2d Cir.· 1991-06-28 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the Speedy Trial Act's exclusions for excludable time are equivalent to the Detainer Act's "good cause" standard for tolling, and that delays caused by codefendants' motions are generally excludable for all defendants in joint trials.
• Indus. Consultants, Inc. v. H. S. Equities, Inc.
  646 F.2d 746· 2d Cir.· 1981-03-31 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the district court correctly applied Oklahoma's two-year statute of limitations, and the action was time-barred, affirming the summary judgment.
• Braniff Airways, Inc. v. Curtiss-Wright Corp.
  424 F.2d 427· 2d Cir.· 1970-04-16 ·cited 8×
  The court held that New York courts would likely apply Florida's accrual-at-discovery rule, rather than New York's time-of-sale rule, in this case.
• Krause v. Textron Fin. Corp.
  59 So. 3d 1085· Fla.· 2011-02-03 ·cited 7×
  The Florida Supreme Court resolved a conflict between district courts regarding whether the federal supplemental jurisdiction statute's tolling provision (28 U.S.C. § 1367(d)) applies when state law claims are dismissed for lack of federal subject matter jurisdiction. The Court h
• Gaisser v. Portfolio Recovery Assocs., LLC
  571 F. Supp. 2d 1273· S.D. Fla.· 2008-08-05 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the New Hampshire statute of limitations applied and was not tolled, and that the Florida litigation privilege barred the FCCPA claim against Orovitz.
• Clements v. State
  979 So. 2d 256· Fla. 2d DCA· 2007-08-10 ·cited 6×
  On remand from the Florida Supreme Court, the Second District Court of Appeal reversed Roger Clements' conviction for sexual activity with a minor in his custodial authority, holding that the State failed to prove the offense occurred within the applicable statute of limitations
• In re Se. Banking Corp.
  855 F. Supp. 353· S.D. Fla.· 1994-05-03 ·cited 6×
  The court held that certain allegations in the second amended complaint stated derivative claims, were barred by the statute of limitations, or lacked specificity, while others sufficiently stated direct claims for breach of duty.
• Heck v. Humphrey
  997 F.2d 355· 7th Cir.· 1993-07-01 ·cited 6×
  A pro se prisoner's civil rights suit challenging his conviction must be dismissed, not stayed, if he fails to exhaust state remedies, even if the statute of limitations would bar refiling after exhaustion.
• J. M. Dungan for ABC Towing Serv. of Salinas, Inc. v. Morgan Drive-Away, Inc.
  570 F.2d 867· 9th Cir.· 1978-01-13 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the empanelling of a grand jury does not suspend the running of the statute of limitations under 15 U.S.C. § 16(i); only the return of an indictment does.