Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
5 District of Columbia opinions name it 1 courts 1990–2015 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by District of Columbia 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.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Howard James Moore v. South Carolina Labor Boardgreen2 sentences1997In that opinion the court stated that the unique circumstances doctrine can apply only where a party is lulled into missing the deadline by a ’’formal court order or ruling, containing specific assurances that action which extends or postpones the deadline has *946 properly been taken.” Id. 100 F.3d at 162 . 1997In that opinion the court stated that the unique circumstances doctrine can apply only where a party is lulled into missing the deadline by a ’’formal court order or ruling, containing specific assurances that action which extends or postpones the deadline has *946 properly been taken.” Id. 100 F.3d at 162 . | 1 | 2 |
Pierola v. Moschonasgreen2 sentences2015See, e.g., Frazier v. Underdue-Frazier, 803 A.2d 443, 444-45 (D.C. 2002) (unique-circumstances doctrine permits court of appeals to treat untimely notice of appeal as timely, even if time limit is mandatory and jurisdictional, if untimeliness resulted from reasonable reliance on affirmatively misleading action of trial court) (citing cases); Pierola v. Moschonas, 687 A.2d 942, 945-47 (D.C. 1997) (same). 2015See, e.g., Frazier v. Underdue-Frazier, 803 A.2d 443, 444-45 (D.C.2002) (unique-circumstances doctrine permits court of appeals to treat untimely notice of appeal as timely, even if time limit is mandatory and jurisdictional, if untimeliness resulted from reasonable reliance on affirmatively misleading action of trial court) (citing cases); Pierola v. Mos-chonas, 687 A.2d 942, 945-47 (D.C.1997) (same). | 1 | 1 |
Bowles v. Russellgreen2 sentences2015But the Supreme Court-held in Bowles that truly jurisdictional timing rules cannot be tolled using this doctrine. 551 U.S. at 214 , 127 S.Ct. 2360 ("Because this Court has no authority to create equitable exceptions to jurisdictional requirements, use of the ‘unique circumstances’ doctrine is illegitimate.”); see also id. (overruling two half-century-old Supreme Court decisions “to the extent they purport to authorize [this] exception to a jurisdictional rule”). 2015But the Supreme Court-held in Bowles that truly jurisdictional timing rules cannot be tolled using this doctrine. 551 U.S. at 214 , 127 S.Ct. 2360 ("Because this Court has no authority to create equitable exceptions to jurisdictional requirements, use of the ‘unique circumstances’ doctrine is illegitimate.”); see also id. (overruling two half-century-old Supreme Court decisions “to the extent they purport to authorize [this] exception to a jurisdictional rule”). | 1 | 1 |
Frazier v. Underdue-Fraziergreen2 sentences2015See, e.g., Frazier v. Underdue-Frazier, 803 A.2d 443, 444-45 (D.C. 2002) (unique-circumstances doctrine permits court of appeals to treat untimely notice of appeal as timely, even if time limit is mandatory and jurisdictional, if untimeliness resulted from reasonable reliance on affirmatively misleading action of trial court) (citing cases); Pierola v. Moschonas, 687 A.2d 942, 945-47 (D.C. 1997) (same). 2015See, e.g., Frazier v. Underdue-Frazier, 803 A.2d 443, 444-45 (D.C.2002) (unique-circumstances doctrine permits court of appeals to treat untimely notice of appeal as timely, even if time limit is mandatory and jurisdictional, if untimeliness resulted from reasonable reliance on affirmatively misleading action of trial court) (citing cases); Pierola v. Mos-chonas, 687 A.2d 942, 945-47 (D.C.1997) (same). | 1 | 1 |
Mr. Jesse Pinion, Mrs. Jesse Pinion, Maurice Daffron, Shirley Daffron v. Dow Chemical, U.S.A.green1 sentence1999Other courts also have recognized that “the real inquiry concerning the scope of the ‘unique circumstances’ exception centers upon the reasonableness of the appellant’s reliance on the action of the [trial] court.” Pinion v. Dow Chemical, U.S.A., 928 F.2d 1522, 1532 (11th Cir.1991) (emphasis in original) (citing authorities). | 1 | 1 |
Felix Butler, Cross-Appellant v. Coral Volkswagen, Inc., Cross-Appelleegreen2 sentences1990Needham v. White Laboratories, 454 U.S. 927, 931 , 102 S.Ct. 427, 429 , 70 L.Ed.2d 237 (1981) (Rehnquist, J., dissenting from denial of certiorari); Butler, supra, 804 F.2d at 617 ; Marane, supra, 755 F.2d at 111 n. 2. 1990Marane, Inc. v. McDonald's Corp., 755 F.2d 106 , 111 n. 2 (7th Cir.1985); Butler v. Coral Volkswagen, Inc., 804 F.2d 612, 617 (11th Cir.1986); see also 4A C. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in District of Columbia. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Frain v. District of Columbia
green
2 sentences1999Those decisions leave no room for Hahn’s attempt to undo his untimely filing on equitable grounds. 4 Hahn cites a trilogy of cases decided by the Supreme Court in the early 1960’s which, he asserts, broadly applied the unique circumstances doctrine to a situation like this where counsel and the trial court have misread their authority under the rules. 5 In Frain , however, we took account of those decisions, see 572 A.2d at 450-51 , finding them “to create [only] a very narrow equitable exception” that requires “the movant’s reliance on the trial court’s erroneous action or statement [to have 1999Those decisions leave no room for Hahn’s attempt to undo his untimely filing on equitable grounds. 4 Hahn cites a trilogy of cases decided by the Supreme Court in the early 1960’s which, he asserts, broadly applied the unique circumstances doctrine to a situation like this where counsel and the trial court have misread their authority under the rules. 5 In Frain , however, we took account of those decisions, see 572 A.2d at 450-51 , finding them “to create [only] a very narrow equitable exception” that requires “the movant’s reliance on the trial court’s erroneous action or statement [to have | 3 | 1997–2002 |
Gatewood v. District of Columbia Water & Sewer Authority
green
1 sentence2015By departing from earlier precedent regarding the division between jurisdictional and claim- processing rules, we act consistently with our decisions in Smith and Gatewood, 82 A.3d at 47 nn.25 & 26, 48 (concluding that recent Supreme Court decisions, including Auburn, ―substantially undermine our former approach to administrative agency deadlines‖). 26 Our colleague concurring in the determination that Rule 15‘s filing deadline may be equitably tolled in this case argues that we should avoid (continued . . .) 32 ( . . . continued) overruling Capitol Hill Restoration Society and resolve this ca | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Marane, Inc., an Illinois Corporation v. McDonald Corporation & McDonald System, Inc.
green
2 sentences1990Needham v. White Laboratories, 454 U.S. 927, 931 , 102 S.Ct. 427, 429 , 70 L.Ed.2d 237 (1981) (Rehnquist, J., dissenting from denial of certiorari); Butler, supra, 804 F.2d at 617 ; Marane, supra, 755 F.2d at 111 n. 2. 1990Marane, Inc. v. McDonald's Corp., 755 F.2d 106 , 111 n. 2 (7th Cir.1985); Butler v. Coral Volkswagen, Inc., 804 F.2d 612, 617 (11th Cir.1986); see also 4A C. | 1 | 1990–1990 |
Conley v. Gibson
red
2 sentences1990We are mindful of, and ready to apply to the jurisprudence of this jurisdiction, the Supreme Court’s admonition that “the Federal Rules reject the approach that pleading is a game of skill in which one misstep by counsel may be decisive to the outcome.” Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 48 , 78 S.Ct. 99, 103 , 2 L.Ed.2d 80 (1957). 1990We are mindful of, and ready to apply to the jurisprudence of this jurisdiction, the Supreme Court’s admonition that “the Federal Rules reject the approach that pleading is a game of skill in which one misstep by counsel may be decisive to the outcome.” Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 48 , 78 S.Ct. 99, 103 , 2 L.Ed.2d 80 (1957). | 1 | 1990–1990 |
Needham v. White Laboratories, Inc.
green
2 sentences1990Needham v. White Laboratories, 454 U.S. 927, 931 , 102 S.Ct. 427, 429 , 70 L.Ed.2d 237 (1981) (Rehnquist, J., dissenting from denial of certiorari); Butler, supra, 804 F.2d at 617 ; Marane, supra, 755 F.2d at 111 n. 2. 1990Needham v. White Laboratories, 454 U.S. 927, 931 , 102 S.Ct. 427, 429 , 70 L.Ed.2d 237 (1981) (Rehnquist, J., dissenting from denial of certiorari); Butler, supra, 804 F.2d at 617 ; Marane, supra, 755 F.2d at 111 n. 2. | 1 | 1990–1990 |
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.