Jewelers Mutual Insurance v. N. Barquet, Inc.

How courts have described this case

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

• rejecting contention that the time 23 between petitioner’s conviction and a state court decision clarifying state law 24 should be equitably tolled
• “Affirmative defenses must be [pleaded] or they will generally be deemed waived and excluded from the case.”
• “A prosecutor is protected by absolute immunity from liability 17 for damages under § 1983 ‘when performing the traditional functions of an advocate’ 18 [citation omitted]”.
• “[A] primary goal of ERISA . . . [is] to provide a method for 7 workers and beneficiaries to resolve disputes over benefits inexpensively and 8 expeditiously.”
• “If a 28 change in (or clarification of) state law, by a state court, in a case in which [the 1 petitioner] was not a party, could qualify as a ‘factual predicate,’ then the term 2 ‘factual’ would be meaningless”
• “If a 3 change in (or clarification of) state law, by a state court, in a case in which [the 4 petitioner] was not a party, could qualify as a ‘factual predicate,’ then the term 5 ‘factual’ would be meaningless”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).