Hersch v. United States

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that the plaintiff’s misrepresentations “could not have induced forbearance from bringing suit when the suit was barred before those misrepresentations could have commenced.”
• holding ILSA claims were time-barred because misrepresentations alleged as basis for equitable estoppel did not commence until after limitations period already expired
• noting that where a statute provides a tolling period, “and then includes a secondary date which ‘in no event’ can be surmounted, there is good basis for belief that the latter date was intended as an absolute barrier to the filing of suit”
• noting that where a statute provides a tolling period, “and then includes a secondary date which ‘in no event’ can be surmounted, there is good basis for belief that the latter date was intended as an absolute barrier to the filing of suit”
• noting that where a statute provides a tolling period, “and then includes a secondary date which ‘in no event’ can be surmounted, there is good basis for belief that the latter date was intended as an absolute barrier to the filing of suit”
• Even if the Act were subject to equitable tolling, this Court has already found that the facts alleged in this action cannot support the use of the doctrine of equitable tolling

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).