Andrew Bartlik v. United States Department of Labor and Tennessee Valley Authority

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(a) does not expand or enlarge the court’s jurisdiction because it does “nothing more than provide the court and the parties with a means of determining the beginning and end” of a prescribed time period
• finding that equitable estoppel applies to toll running of section 1640(e)
• overruling Rust v. Quality Car Corral, Inc., 614 F.2d 1118 (6th Cir. 1980) and holding that “even if a statute of limitations is considered ‘jurisdictional,’ the application of Civil Rule 6(a) . . . does not expand our jurisdiction”
• courts must endeavor to apply the plain meaning of a statute as ascertained through a “straightforward” and “commonsense” approach
• courts must endeavor to apply the plain meaning of a statute as ascertained through a \straightforward\ and \commonsense\ approach
• \[I]fCongress intends to negate the applicability of * * * Appellate Rule 26(a) it will have to expressly communicate this desire.\

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).