Kominski v. Delaware

How courts have described this case

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

• explaining that “equitable tolling of the 60-day requirement is justified ‘where consistent with congressional intent and called for by the facts of the case.’”
• recognizing “waiver of the exhaustion requirement and tolling of the period of limitations will rarely be appropriate”
• explaining that “equitable tolling of the 60-day requirement is justified ‘where consistent with congressional intent and called for by the facts of the case.’”
• explaining that “equitable tolling of the 60-day requirement is justified ‘where consistent with congressional intent and called for by the facts of the case.’”
• relying on Bowen and approving equitable tolling under Section 405(g) where a “systematic, unpublished policy . . . denied benefits in disregard of the law”
• applying the exception where the claimants would be “irreparably injured if the exhaustion requirement were enforced against them”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).