Strict Adherence to Deadlines

[Sanford Levinson]

I agree with Prof. Blumstein that mindless textualism is not the
province uniquely of either left or right.  But Locke didn't raise the
issue of equitable estoppel.  What if the Interior Department had sent
the claimant a letter saying that Dec. 31 would be all right?  

sandy

-----Original Message-----
From: conlawprof-bounces at lists.ucla.edu
[mailto:conlawprof-bounces at lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Blumstein, James
Sent: Monday, June 18, 2007 6:17 PM
To: conlawprof at lists.ucla.edu
Subject: Strict Adherence to Deadlines

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.