State ex rel. Hartford Fire Insurance v. Taylor

How courts have described this case

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

• explaining that claims-processing rules are “typically promulgated by a decision-making body” and jurisdictional rules are “most often legislative enactments”
• explaining that this court‘s ―more nuanced examination‖ of whether a rule ―is truly jurisdictional or merely a ‗claim-processing‘ rule‖ is grounded in ―recent Supreme Court decisions‖ including Auburn
• observing that ―the Council for the District of Columbia did not force [the agency‘s internal filing deadline] upon the agency‖ and because ―the regulation‘s deadline [wa]s a self-imposed restriction, [it] b[ore] the indicia of a claim-processing rule‖
• assuming without discussion that we had jurisdiction under the DCAPA to conduct direct review of petitions concerning billing disputes with DC Water
• discussing the burden-shifting framework for adjudicating disputes with the water authority wherein a customer has the initial burden of proof
• “Jurisdictional rules may be raised at any point in the proceedings and are not subject to waiver, however late they are invoked. By contrast, nonjurisdictional rules and deadlines may be extended or waived.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).