Strict Adherence to Deadlines

[Bernard Bell]

    Point well taken (I must confess I've never paid much attention to
the estoppel issues before).  However, note that Justice O'Connor
herself acknowledges that Justice Marshall and the majority did not
reject the Locke's estoppel argument, but rather said that it had not
been raised below and should be considered on remand.  And a quick
glance at footnote 7 of the Marshall opinion appears to confirm that. 
So ultimately, I still think it is a bit of a stretch to equate
Marshall's opinion in Locke to the majority opinion in Bowles.
   As I noted earlier, however, I do agree with the proposition that
"liberals" as well as "conservatives" may insist upon strict adherence
to guidelines, but on the whole "liberal" jurists and "conservative"
jurists may have different tendencies with regard to the frequency with
which they are willing to waive deadlines and the circumstances under
which they are willing to do so.

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


>>> Nelson Lund <nlund at gmu.edu> 6/18/2007 7:04 pm >>>
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.
>