class action tolling rule (Maryland) · Go Syfert
← Maryland issues

class action tolling rule in Maryland

5 Maryland opinions name it 2 courts 2006–2024 2 in the last five years

The cases below were cited by Maryland courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.

Followed or applied (4)

CaseFollowedCited
American Pipe & Construction Co. v. Utahgreen
scotus · 1974 · cited in 3 Maryland opinions naming this issue, 2006–2021
2 sentences

2021Mr. Cain also argued that his additional claims were not time-barred because the statute of limitations was tolled under the class action tolling doctrine recognized by the Supreme Court in American Pipe & Construction Co. v. Utah, 414 U.S. 538 (1974), and adopted by this Court in Philip Morris USA, Inc. v. Christensen, 394 Md. 227 (2006), abrogated on other grounds, Mummert v. Alizadeh, 435 Md. 207 (2013).

2006First, they contend that this Court’s precedents preclude judicial recognition of a tolling exception to a statute of limitations such as the class action tolling exception *236 recognized by the Supreme Court in American Pipe & Construction Co. v. Utah, 414 U.S. 538 , 94 S.Ct. 756 , 38 L.Ed.2d 713 (1974), maintaining that the creation of such an exception is the exclusive prerogative of the General Assembly.

13
Stevens v. Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp.green
mont · 2010 · cited in 1 Maryland opinions naming this issue, 2013–2013
1 sentence

2013On appeal, the plaintiff alleged that “because the Becker class action contained a request for worldwide class certification, and contained a claim for failure to warn against the dangers of Zometa ..., the statute of limitations was tolled as to [her], along with all other potential class members, under the class action tolling rule.” Id. at 250 (internal quotations omitted).

11
Jolly v. Eli Lilly & Co.green
cal · 1988 · cited in 1 Maryland opinions naming this issue, 2006–2006
2 sentences

2006In Jolly v. Eli Lilly & Co., 44 Cal.3d 1103 , 245 Cal.Rptr. 658 , 751 P.2d 923 (1988), the California Supreme Court aptly observed that American Pipe represented an attempt to balance two fundamental policy considerations, “the protection of the class action device,” and “the effectuation of the purposes of the statute of limitations.” Id. at 935.

2006In Jolly v. Eli Lilly & Co., 44 Cal.3d 1103 , 245 Cal.Rptr. 658 , 751 P.2d 923 (1988), the California Supreme Court aptly observed that American Pipe represented an attempt to balance two fundamental policy considerations, “the protection of the class action device,” and “the effectuation of the purposes of the statute of limitations.” Id. at 935.

11
Bell v. United Statesgreen
scotus · 1983 · cited in 1 Maryland opinions naming this issue, 2006–2006
1 sentence

2006In particular, we emphasize that, in order to claim the benefits of class action tolling, the individual suit must “concern the same evidence, memories, and witnesses as the subject matter of the original class suit,” American Pipe, 414 U.S. at 562 , 94 S.Ct. at 770 (Blackmun, J., concurring), and that “[cjlaims as to which the defendant was not fairly placed on notice by the class suit are not protected under American Pipe.” Crown, Cork & Seal, 462 U.S. at 355, 103 S.Ct. at 2398 (Powell, J., concurring).

11

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

CaseNegativeCited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Maryland. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (6)

CaseCitedYears
Philip Morris USA, Inc. v. Christensen green
md · 2006
2 sentences

2024In Philip Morris USA, Inc. v. Christensen, which established the two-part test for judicial tolling, the issue before the Maryland Supreme Court was the class action tolling doctrine. 394 Md. at 231 .

2021Mr. Cain also argued that his additional claims were not time-barred because the statute of limitations was tolled under the class action tolling doctrine recognized by the Supreme Court in American Pipe & Construction Co. v. Utah, 414 U.S. 538 (1974), and adopted by this Court in Philip Morris USA, Inc. v. Christensen, 394 Md. 227 (2006), abrogated on other grounds, Mummert v. Alizadeh, 435 Md. 207 (2013).

32013–2024
McMahan v. Dorchester Fertilizer Co. green
md · 1944
1 sentence

2021With principles of judicial economy and efficiency in mind, we agreed with the American Pipe Court that, “in the absence of a class action tolling rule, putative class members will . . . have a sufficiently strong incentive to file protective claims to justify adoption of a class action tolling rule.” Id.

12021–2021
Mummert v. Alizadeh green
md · 2013
1 sentence

2021Mr. Cain also argued that his additional claims were not time-barred because the statute of limitations was tolled under the class action tolling doctrine recognized by the Supreme Court in American Pipe & Construction Co. v. Utah, 414 U.S. 538 (1974), and adopted by this Court in Philip Morris USA, Inc. v. Christensen, 394 Md. 227 (2006), abrogated on other grounds, Mummert v. Alizadeh, 435 Md. 207 (2013).

12021–2021
Christensen v. Philip Morris USA Inc. green
mdctspecapp · 2005
2 sentences

2012The opinion of this Court explained how the recognition of the class action tolling exception had been deemed necessary by the Supreme Court in the American Pipe case in order “to protect the policies undergirding the class action procedure.” 162 Md.App. at 645 , 875 A.2d 823 .

2012The opinion of this Court explained how the recognition of the class action tolling exception had been deemed necessary by the Supreme Court in the American Pipe case in order “to protect the policies undergirding the class action procedure.” 162 Md.App. at 645 , 875 A.2d 823 .

12012–2012
Chardon v. Fumero Soto green
scotus · 1983
2 sentences

2006Third, petitioners maintain that even if we were to adopt the rationale of American Pipe, the class action tolling rule enunciated therein would not render respondents’ claims timely, given the Supreme Court’s elaboration of American Pipe in Chardon v. Soto, 462 U.S. 650 , 103 S.Ct. 2611 , 77 L.Ed.2d 74 (1983).

2006Third, petitioners maintain that even if we were to adopt the rationale of American Pipe, the class action tolling rule enunciated therein would not render respondents’ claims timely, given the Supreme Court’s elaboration of American Pipe in Chardon v. Soto, 462 U.S. 650 , 103 S.Ct. 2611 , 77 L.Ed.2d 74 (1983).

12006–2006
Philip Morris Inc. v. Angeletti green
md · 2000
2 sentences

2006They then argue that Maryland should adopt American Pipe tolling, and should not carve out an exception for mass-tort putative class actions to the class action tolling rule of American Pipe, because adopting such an exception would be inconsistent with this Court’s conclusion in Philip Morris v. Angeletti, 358 Md. 689 , 752 A.2d 200 (2000), that there is no per se prohibition against mass-tort class action suits, but that each such suit must be examined individually on its merits to determine whether certification of the suit as a class action is appropriate.

2006They then argue that Maryland should adopt American Pipe tolling, and should not carve out an exception for mass-tort putative class actions to the class action tolling rule of American Pipe, because adopting such an exception would be inconsistent with this Court’s conclusion in Philip Morris v. Angeletti, 358 Md. 689 , 752 A.2d 200 (2000), that there is no per se prohibition against mass-tort class action suits, but that each such suit must be examined individually on its merits to determine whether certification of the suit as a class action is appropriate.

12006–2006

Where else courts name it

MD 5 (2006–2024) TN 4 (2005–2020) IL 3 (1993–2015) DE 2 (2013–2026) AZ 2 (1984–2011) CA 2 (2020–2023)

Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check