Strict Adherence to Deadlines

[Nelson Lund]

There was indeed a significant reliance argument. See O'Connor's 
concurrence.

Nelson Lund
George Mason

Bernard Bell wrote:

>    As I recall, though, Locke (a classic statutory interpretation case
>involving presumed "legislative intent" versus text) differs from Bowles
>in a significant respect.  In Locke, I believe, there was not much of a
>reliance argument —- Locke's counsel was not relying on an order from
>a federal judge or anything else that would give rise to an estoppel
>interest.  (Indeed, Locke's counsel may not have even asked for a waiver
>of the statutory deadline; his main, and perhaps only, argument was that
>his reading of the statute, that a claim could be filed on December 31, 
>was the correct one.)  Note also that Justices Brennan and Sevens
>dissented.  
>    I have no doubt that at times judges on various parts of the
>spectrum of judicial philosophy and ideology will at times demand strict
>adherence to deadlines.  I do suspect, though, that judicial philosophy
>and ideology will play a role in how often a judge will insist on strict
>adherence to deadlines, and in what types of cases.
>
>Regards,
>
>Bernie Bell
>
>Bernard W. Bell
>Associate Dean for Academic Affairs & Faculty
>Professor & Herbert Hannoch Scholar
>Rutgers Law School-Newark
>123 Washington Street
>Newark, NJ 07102
>(973) 353-5464 (voice)
>(973) 353-1445 (fax)
>bbell at kinoy.rutgers.edu
>
>
>  
>
>>>>"Blumstein, James" <james.blumstein at law.vanderbilt.edu> 6/18/2007
>>>>        
>>>>
>6:16 pm >>>
>Apropos of the recent discussion of filing deadlines, List members may
>be interested in an opinion by Justice Marshall, U.S. v. Locke, 471
>U.S.
>84 (1985), in which he ruled that parties forfeited significant rights
>because they filed the required materials on December 31 when the
>relevant law required that the materials be filed "prior to December
>31."  Strict adherence to time filing deadlines can cut across the
>judicial philosophical spectrum..... 
>
>_______________________________________________
>To post, send message to Conlawprof at lists.ucla.edu To subscribe,
>unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see
>http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/conlawprof 
>
>Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as
>private.  Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are
>posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can
>(rightly
>or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
>_______________________________________________
>To post, send message to Conlawprof at lists.ucla.edu 
>To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see
>http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/conlawprof 
>
>Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as
>private.  Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are
>posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly
>or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
>_______________________________________________
>To post, send message to Conlawprof at lists.ucla.edu
>To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/conlawprof
>
>Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private.  Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.ucla.edu/pipermail/conlawprof/attachments/20070618/ddcb4ae7/attachment.htm