green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 2×
22.5 score
“we are reluctant to expand the equitable tolling doctrine to include mental incapacity or illness where no court has previously recognized such a tolling factor.”
Treatment trajectory · 1988 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1988
2007
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 28 distinct citers.
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Cracraft v. Utah Valley University
inquiry notice is triggered by evidence of the possibility of fraud; it does not require full exposition of the fraud itself.
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Akre v. Allbaugh
we are reluctant to expand the equitable tolling doctrine to include mental incapacity or illness where no court has previously recognized such a tolling factor.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
San Miguel Hospital Corporation v. Johnson & Johnson
Hutton & Co., 852 F.2d 516, 523 (10th Cir.1988) (“Inquiry notice is triggered by evidence of the possibility of fraud; it does not require full exposition of the fraud itself.” (emphasis added) (citations omitted)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Loginovskaya v. Batratchenko
Hutton & Co., 852 F.2d 516, 519 (10th Cir.1988) (noting that CEA § 4b, rather than § 4o, is “most closely analogous to the antifraud provision” of SEA § 10(b)); Gruss, 859 F.Supp.2d at 662 (holding that Morrison’s transaction test does not apply to Section 206 of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 because its focus is on the investment advisor).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Robert L. Kroenlein Trust Ex Rel. Alden v. Kirchhefer
Hutton & Co., 852 F.2d 516, 523 (10th Cir.1988) (“Inquiry notice is triggered by evidence of the possibility of fraud; it does not require full exposition of the fraud itself.” (emphasis added) (citations omitted)).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Richardson v. Cella
Hutton & Co., Inc., 852 F.2d 516, 523 (10th Cir.1988) (“In this case, however, the statements remained unopened for several years.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Poskin v. TD Banknorth, N.A.
Hutton & Co., Inc., 852 F.2d 516, 521 (10th Cir.1988) (“Mental illness, even where rising to the level of insanity, [will not] delay the statute of limitations from running.”).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Larry D. Barrett, Claimant-Appellant v. Anthony J. Principi, Secretary of Veterans Affairs
Hutton & Co., 852 F.2d 516, 521 (10th Cir.1988), the Tenth Circuit stated, “Under the doctrine of federal equitable tolling, courts generally have not permitted mental illness, even where rising to the level of insanity, to delay the statute of limitations from running.” The viability of Ebrahimi is questionable, however, because it predated Irwin, supra, and because the later opinion in Biester v. Midwest Health Services, Inc., 77 F.3d 1264, 1268 (10th Cir. 1996), takes a less certain stance on the issue.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Estate of Henderson Ex Rel. Johnson v. Meritage Mortgage Corp.
Hutton & Co., Inc., 852 F.2d 516, 521 (10th Cir.1988).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Giant Group, Ltd. v. Sands
Hutton & Co., 852 F.2d 516, 523 (10th Cir.1988) (statements which alert investor that “something may have been amiss” are sufficient to put investor on inquiry notice); Insurance Consultants of America, Inc., Employee Pension Plan v. Southeastern Ins.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Hembree Ex Rel. Hembree v. Provident Life & Accident Insurance
Hutton & Co., 852 F.2d 516, 520 (10th Cir.1988) (holding that when a cause of action is based on federal law, federal law should govern determination of when a claim accrued and whether the statute of limitations had run, even when borrowing the actual limitations period from state statute; "[u]nder the doctrine of federal equitable tolling, courts generally have not permitted mental illness, even where rising to the level of insanity, to delay the statute of limitations from running”). 6 .
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States ex rel. Koch v. Koch Industries, Inc.
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
Hutton & Co. Inc., 852 F.2d 516, 521 (10th Cir.1988).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Cook v. Rockwell International Corp.
Hutton & Co., 852 F.2d 516, 523 (10th Cir.1988)).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Resolution Trust Corp. v. Scaletty
F. Hutton & Co., 852 F.2d 516, 520-21 (10th Cir. 1988).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
James M. Shields v. Boettcher Investment Corporation Boettcher & Co., Inc., a Delaware Corporation Bryan Shobe
(2×)
also: Cited "see, e.g."
Hutton & Co., 852 F.2d 516, 521 (10th Cir.1988)(quoting Holmberg v. Armbrecht, 327 U.S. 392, 397 (1946)(which quoted Bailey v. Glover, 88 U.S. (21 Wall.) 342, 347 (1875))).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Bolin v. Cessna Aircraft Co.
Hutton & Co., 852 F.2d 516, 520 (10th Cir.1988); Newcomb v. Ingle, 827 F.2d 675, 678 (10th Cir.1987) (en banc). 18 .
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Cook v. Rockwell International Corp.
Hutton & Co., 852 F.2d 516, 523 (10th Cir.1988).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Scofield v. Telecable of Overland Park, Inc.
Hutton & Co., 852 F.2d 516, 519 (10th Cir.1988).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Bath v. Bushkin, Gaims, Gaines & Jonas
Hutton & Co., 852 F.2d 516, 520 (10th Cir.1988); Newcomb v. Ingle, 827 F.2d 675, 678 (10th Cir.1987) (en banc agreement on this point).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Bath v. Bushkin
Hutton & Co., 852 F.2d 516, 520 (10th Cir.1988); Newcomb v. Ingle, 827 F.2d 675, 678 (10th Cir.1987) (en banc agreement on this point). 12 The district court indicated that a civil RICO claim accrued when plaintiffs knew or should have known of the injury which is the basis for the action, relying upon Compton v. Ide, 732 F.2d 1429 (9th Cir.1984).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
McDonald v. Centra
Hutton & Co., 852 F.2d 516, 521 (10th Cir.1988) (doctrine implied only where application consistent with Congressional intent).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Dubin v. Miller
Hutton & Co., Inc., 852 F.2d 516, 520 (10th Cir.1988) (three-year period contained in section 13-80-109 applicable to 10[b] actions).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Van Bering Robinson v. John Maruffi, Joseph Polisar, Clarence Kraemer and Eloy Whitey Hansen, Chief of Police
Hutton & Co., Inc., 852 F.2d 516, 520 (10th Cir.1988); see also Newcomb v. Ingle, 827 F.2d 675, 678 (10th Cir.1987) (accrual of § 1983 action is matter of federal law). 9 .
discussed
Cited "see"
Lively v. Rufus
See Mattingly, Inc. v. Beatrice Foods Co., 835 F.2d 1547, 1559 (10th Cir.1987) (“The proper measure of recovery for the destruction of a business is the ‘difference between the ... market value of the business before and after the injury.’” (citations omitted)), vacated on other grounds, 852 F.2d 516 (10th Cir.1988); Taylor v. B.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Williamson v. Wyoming Department of Corrections
In Biester, we held that because the evidence showed the appellant was capable of pursuing his own claim, his mental condition did not rise to the level of a mental incapacity sufficient to toll a statute of limitations. 77 F.3d at 1268; see also Ebrahimi, 852 F.2d at 522 n.7 (stating that “a mentally incompetent person is one who is so affected mentally as to be deprived of sane and normal action or who lacks sufficient capacity to understand in a reasonable manner the nature and effect of the act he is performing” 10 Neither Biester nor Ebrahimi held that mental incapacity tolls a federa…
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Cast Art Industries v. Kpmg LLP
See, e.g., Mattingly, Inc. v. Beatrice Foods Co., 835 F. 2d 1547 , 1559-60 (10th Cir.1987), vacated due to settlement, 852 F. 2d 516 (10th Cir.1988); Int'l Indem.
Mattingly, Inc., a Kansas Corporation, and Mattingly Pools, Inc., a Kansas Corporation, Plaintiffs-Appellees-Cross-Appellants
v.
Beatrice Foods Company, Defendant-Appellant-Cross-Appellee
v.
Beatrice Foods Company, Defendant-Appellant-Cross-Appellee
83-2206.
Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.
Jul 19, 1988.
Published
Citer courts: Tenth Circuit (1)
MATTINGLY, INC., a Kansas Corporation, and Mattingly Pools,
Inc., a Kansas corporation,
Plaintiffs-Appellees-Cross-Appellants,
v.
BEATRICE FOODS COMPANY, Defendant-Appellant-Cross-Appellee.
Nos. 83-2206, 83-2207.
United States Court of Appeals,
Tenth Circuit.
July 19, 1988.
[*~516]1
Before HOLLOWAY, C.J., MOORE, Circuit Judge and THOMPSON, District judge.
[*~518]2
This matter comes on for consideration of a notice by the parties in the captioned appeals of dismissal of these appeals and pending motion for rehearing.
[*~523]3
Upon consideration whereof, the notice of dismissal of appeals and motion for rehearing and being advised of settlement of all claims, it is ordered that these appeals and the pending motion for rehearing are dismissed, and the opinion of this court previously reported at 835 F.2d 1547, is vacated.