King v. State Of California

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that equitable tolling may apply in “appropriate circumstances . . . 20 until the borrower discovers or had reasonable opportunity to discover the fraud or 21 nondisclosures that form the basis of the TILA action”
• holding equitable tolling is appropriate for TILA claims to effectuate the goals of the statute
• explaining that “Congress did not intend to prolong the [§ 1635(f)] limitations period under a ‘continuing violation’ theory” but instead “placed a three year absolute limit on rescission actions”
• noting that “the doctrine of equitable tolling may, in the appropriate circumstances, suspend the limitations period until the borrower discovers or had reasonable opportunity to discover the fraud or nondisclosures that form the basis of the TILA action”
• rejecting continuing violation theory with respect to statute of limitations for a damages claim under the TILA based, in part, on ground that it is unavailable under § 1635(f)
• statute of limitations 15 period runs from “the date of consummation of the transaction”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).