# American Pipe & Construction Co. v. Utah

> Supreme Court of the United States · February 25, 1974 · 414 U.S. 538

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9425509

## Case

- **Full name:** AMERICAN PIPE & CONSTRUCTION CO. Et Al. v. UTAH Et Al.
- **Court:** Supreme Court of the United States
- **Decided:** February 25, 1974
- **Citations:** 414 U.S. 538; 94 S. Ct. 756; 38 L. Ed. 2d 713; 1974 U.S. LEXIS 42
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Blackmun
- **Judges:** Stewart, Blackmun
- **Cited by:** 1,934 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- **Yellow flag:** Limited by Jolly v. Eli Lilly & Co., 44 Cal. 3d 1103 (1988).
- Negative treatments: 1
- Distinguished by: 6
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9425509

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- explaining that “[i]n recognizing judicial power to toll statutes of limitation in federal courts we are not breaking new ground” and identifying that the Rules Enabling Act “does not restrict the power of the federal courts to hold that the statute of limitations is tolled un…
- explaining that “the mere fact that a federal statute providing for substantive liability also sets a time limitation upon the institution of suit does not restrict'the power of the federal courts to hold' that the statute of limitations is tolled under certain circumstances n…
- recognizing that American Pipe “established that commencement of a class action tolls the applicable statute of limitations as to all members of the class”
- stating that “the purpose of the statute of limitations is to prevent surprises ‘through the revival of claims that have been allowed to slumber until evidence has been lost, memories have faded, and witnesses have disappeared’ ”
- holding that the timely filing of a class action tolls the applicable statute of limitations for all persons encompassed by the class action complaint, i.e., the putative class

## Opinion text

Me. Justice Blackmun,
concurring.
I join the Court's opinion and concur in its judgment. Our decision, however, must not be regarded as encouragement to lawyers in a case of this kind to frame their pleadings as a class action, intentionally, to attract and save members of the purported class who have slept on their rights. Nor does it necessarily guarantee intervention for all members of the purported class.
As the Court has indicated, the purpose of statutes of limitations is to prevent surprises “through the revival of claims that have been allowed to slumber until evidence has been lost, memories have faded, and witnesses have disappeared.” Order of Railroad Telegraphers v. Railway Express Agency, 321 U. S. 342, 348-349 (1944). Under our decision today, intervenors as of *562 right will be permitted to press their claims subject only to the requirement that they have an interest relating to the property or transaction and be impaired or impeded in their ability to protect that interest. Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 24 (a). Such claims, therefore, invariably will concern the same evidence, memories, and witnesses as the subject matter of the original class suit, and the defendant will not be prejudiced by later intervention, should class relief be denied. Permissive intervenors may be barred, however, if the district judge, in his discretion, concludes that the intervention will “unduly delay or prejudice the adjudication of the rights of the original parties.” Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 24 (b). The proper exercise of this discretion will prevent the type of abuse mentioned above and might preserve a defendant whole against prejudice arising from claims for which he has received no prior notice.
The provision in Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 23 (c)(1), that an order allowing the maintenance of a suit as a class action “may be conditional, and may be altered or amended before the decision on the merits,” could be viewed to generate uncertainty under the Court’s decision, for the class aspect might be disbanded after the litigation has long been underway. Rule 23 (c)(1), of course, provides that the court shall decide whether a class action may be maintained “[a]s soon as practicable after the commencement of an action.” This decision, therefore, will normally be made expeditiously. And any later alteration with respect to intervention is subject to the discretionary elements of Rule 24 (b), mentioned above, and to Rule 23 (d) (3)’s provision that “the court may make appropriate orders . . . imposing conditions ... on intervenors.”

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9425509. Public record. Not legal advice.