Montoya v. Chao

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that difficulties faced by many litigants such as “limited education and little understanding of the law or of the intricacies of the procedural framework of Title VII actions” do not suffice to justify equitable tolling
• finding that pro se plaintiff’s “garden variety claim of excusable neglect” was “unworthy of meriting equitable tolling”
• noting the same standards and recognizing that a “garden variety claim of excusable neglect” is “unworthy of meriting equitable tolling” (citation omitted)
• “To the contrary, the instant case is precisely the type of ‘garden variety claim of excusable neglect’ that the Supreme Court deemed unworthy of meriting equitable tolling[.]”
• “The burden of establishing subject- matter jurisdiction is on the party asserting jurisdiction.”
• “The burden of establishing subject- matter jurisdiction is on the party asserting jurisdiction.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).