Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Equitable tolling applies in criminal and civil proceedings, including in removal proceedings under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). [2] Equitable tolling is a common principle of law stating that a statute of limitations shall not bar a claim in cases where the plaintiff, despite use of due diligence, could not or did not discover the injury until after the expiration of the ...
Fraudulent concealment is a common law doctrine that may be invoked to toll a statute of limitations.Under this doctrine, if a defendant has concealed his misconduct, then the limitations period shall start from the point when the plaintiff discovers his claim, or should have discovered it with due diligence. [1]
Warranty tolling refers to a legal requirement, in some jurisdictions, that the timeframe provided in a product warranty shall be tolled (paused) to protect the consumer from unfairly being deprived of its protections.
In tort law, if any person or entity commits a series of illegal acts against another person or entity (or in criminal law if a defendant commits a continuing crime) the limitation period may begin to run from the last act in the series. [69] [70] The entire chain of events can be tolled if the violations
Outline of law: Lists; List of Latin phrases This page was last edited on 18 April 2024, at 03 ...
The question in the case was whether a term of supervised release for one event can be tolled (paused) by imprisonment for another offense. The Supreme Court decided that a term of supervised release is paused by imprisonment for another offense in a 5–4 decision that did not conform to typical ideological lines. [1]
The operation of a statute of limitations can be avoided or tolled by a number of equitable factors, such as the minority of the injured party, or attempts by a tortfeasor to conceal evidence of responsibility. Some statutes of limitations begin to run only when the injured party discovers or reasonably should have discovered the injury.
Artuz v. Bennett, 531 U.S. 4 (2000), was a unanimously-decided United States Supreme Court case. The case concerned whether a habeas corpus petition tolled for time under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 when certain state claims are still pending.