Prince v. Stewart

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that equitable tolling applied where district court granted pro se litigant’s motion to reopen and thus “lulled him into thinking he didn’t have to refile his complaint”
• finding Rule 60(b)(6) is “broad enough . . . to encompass the reopening of a proceeding that had been dismissed without prejudice”
• “[A]t this stage there is no indication of why the letter initially was unclaimed, and so we must (though only provisionally) take [the plaintiff] at his word that, through no fault of his own, he first received it [as alleged].”
• equitable tolling may be appropriate where a court “lull[s]” a pro se litigant “into thinking he didn’t have to refile his complaint” or has “misled a party regarding the steps that the party needs to take to preserve a claim” (citations omitted)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).