Matter of Akhtar v. Naeem

How courts have described this case

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

• rejecting appellants’ attempt to “impose upon the state employment office the type of affirmative obligations found in an attorney-client relationship.”
• finding claims for equitable tolling valid under 2636(d), although ultimately finding the claim unmeritorious
• refusing to apply the doctrine of equitable tolling and stating that the government was not required to inform plaintiff of the publication procedures of the U.S. Department of Labor or of the implications of publication for triggering the running of the limitations period
• “cases . . . requiring application of the appropriate standard to undisputed facts, are properly questions of law reviewed de novo.”
• “We do not suggest that the high level of activity described in [another case] represents the minimum required for a finding of due diligence.”
• “The application of the diligence standard [for equitable tolling] to the undisputed facts of this case presents a question of law that we review de novo.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).