Boston Old Colony Insurance v. Tanya Casuals, Ltd.

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that nothing in the statute spoke directly to the continuing violations doctrine nor displaced it
• explaining that “statute of limitations defense may be appropriately resolved on a Rule 12(b) motion when the dates given in the complaint make clear that the right sued upon has been extinguished” and applying the Rule 12(b)(6
• cautioning that courts may resolve a statute of limitations defense on a Rule 12(b) motion, but only “when the dates given in the complaint make clear that the right sued upon has been extinguished” (quotation cleaned up) (emphasis added)
• placing the burden on the party seeking to toll the statute of limitations by operation of the continuing violation doctrine
• explaining the repeated violation doctrine “allows recovery for only that part of the injury the plaintiff suffered during the limitations period”
• addressing a 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss a claim on timeliness grounds and—in addition to placing primary reliance on the complaint’s allegations— considering materials in the administrative record of which the district court properly took judicial notice

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).