Union Electric Corp. v. Board of Property Assessment, Appeals & Review

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that appealing parties’ reliance upon unauthorized extension of administrative appeal deadline by the governmental board with jurisdiction over appeals was reasonable
• holding that, in “extraordinary circumstances,” when a jurisdictional appeal deadline is missed as a result of a “breakdown in the [trial] court’s operations through a default of its officers,” an appeal nunc pro tunc may be allowed to remedy injustice (quotations omitted)
• finding a breakdown in court operations occurs, and thus nunc pro tunc relief is warranted, where a court officer or administrative body “is negligent, acts improperly, or unintentionally misleads a party.”
• allowing a nunc pro tunc appeal where the failure to comply with the timeliness requirement was caused by an administrative body’s misstatement of the deadline for filing an appeal
• allowing a nunc pro tunc appeal where the failure to comply with the timeliness requirement was caused by an administrative body’s misstatement of the deadline for filing an appeal
• “Our Supreme Court has “characterized administrative breakdown as occurring when ‘an administrative body acts negligently, improperly or in a misleading way.’”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).