|
Equitable tolling is a principle of law stating that a statute of limitations shall not bar a claim in cases where the plaintiff, despite use of due diligence, could not or did not discover the injury until after the expiration of the limitations period. For example, when pursuing one of several legal remedies, the statute of limitations on the remedies not being pursued will be equitably tolled if the plaintiff can show: *Timely notice to the adverse party is given within applicable statute of limitations of filing first claim *Lack of prejudice to the defendant *Reasonable good faith conduct on part of the plaintiff. It has been held that equitable tolling applies principally if the plaintiff is actively misled by the defendant about the cause of action or is prevented in some extraordinary way from asserting his or her rights. However, it has also been held that the equitable tolling doctrine does not require wrongful conduct on the part of the defendant, such as fraud or misrepresentation.〔51 American Jurisprudence 2d Limitation of Actions § 174 (2007).〕 ==In the United States== The United States Supreme Court elucidated: The Supreme Court of Alaska distinguished the concepts of equitable tolling and equitable estoppel: Arizona courts have recognized and applied the equitable tolling doctrine. See Hosogai v. Kadota, 145 Ariz. 227, 229, 700 P.2d 1327, 1329 (1985) (applying doctrine when second wrongful death claim untimely filed after successful verdict on first claim overturned on appeal due to defective service of process); Kosman (State ), 199 Ariz. 184, ¶¶ 6, 10, 16 P.3d at 213 (applying doctrine where plaintiff prisoner failed to timely file notice of claim against state because he first pursued claim through prison's administrative grievance procedure); Kyles v. Contractors/Eng'rs Supply, Inc., 190 Ariz. 403, 404, 406, 949 P.2d 63, 64, 66 (App.1997) (applying doctrine when right-to-sue letter from Arizona Attorney General's office contained incorrect date by which plaintiff was required to sue on his claim). See also McCloud v. State, Ariz. Dep't of Pub. Safety, 170 P.3d 691, 696 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2007). The Supreme Court of California enunciated: The Delaware Supreme Court examined the application of equitable tolling where defendants were subject to substituted service: The Florida Supreme court observed, as an equitable remedy, the prejudice to the defendant must be considered before application: Maryland case law disfavors tolling the statute of limitations: The Court of Appeals of Michigan explicated that the plaintiff must exercise due diligence in order to invoke equitable tolling: Mississippi courts require earnest efforts by plaintiffs seeking tolling: The Supreme Court of New Mexico opined: The North Dakota Supreme Court determined a plaintiff's failure to timely serve the defendants did not warrant equitable tolling: Before April 22, 2015, when the United States was a defendant, equitable tolling could not be applied against the United States since the Spending Clause has been interpreted by the Supreme Court to only vest Congress with the authority to waive sovereign immunity, and statutes of limitation are interpreted as a condition on the waiver of sovereign immunity that limit the jurisdiction of a court to hear cases against the United States. As of April 22, 2015, The Supreme Court of the United States, in US vs Wong ruled that equitable tolling can be applied against the United States, despite the Spending Clause. 〔http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/13-1074_09m1.pdf〕 抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』 ■ウィキペディアで「equitable tolling」の詳細全文を読む スポンサード リンク
|