Charles Kruger v. Kenneth S. Apfel

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that objection period is not jurisdictional, and district court may consider late objections
• noting that dismissal for want of prosecution is “an extraordinarily harsh sanction that should be used only in extreme situations” (quotation marks omitted)
• noting that dismissal for want of prosecution is “an extraordinarily harsh sanction that should be used only in extreme situations” (quotation marks omitted)
• noting that dismissal for want of prosecution is “an extraordinarily harsh sanction that should be used only in extreme situations” (quotation marks omitted)
• noting that the time period for filing objections “is not jurisdictional,” and thus “the district court [i]s not barred from considering the late objections”
• noting that dismissal for want of prosecution is “an extraordinarily harsh sanction that should be used only in extreme situations” (quotation marks omitted

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).