holding that equitable tolling is not available in a suit brought pursuant to the Quiet Title Act because that statute already effectively allows for equitable tolling by providing that the statute of limitations will not begin to run until the plaintiff "knew or should have known of the claim,” noting that "equitable tolling is not permissible where it is inconsistent with the text of the relevant statute”
How later courts described this case
- holding that equitable tolling is not available in a suit brought pursuant to the Quiet Title Act because that statute already effectively allows for equitable tolling by providing that the statute of limitations will not begin to run until the plaintiff "knew or should have known of the claim,” noting that "equitable tolling is not permissible where it is inconsistent with the text of the relevant statute”
- finding that judicially provided equitable tolling was unavailable because the Quiet Title Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2409a, by providing that the 12-year statute of repose will not "begin to run until the plaintiff `knew or should have known of the claim of the United States,' has already effectively allowed for equitable tolling"
- determining that allegations that the government “failed to thoroughly search its records and make full disclosure to the Court” regarding a land grant at issue did not “approach [the] demanding standard” such that “allow[ing] the judgment to stand” would work a “grave miscarriage of justice” (cleaned up)
- stating that “[o]n the other hand, section 2501 differs from the Irwin statute in that it contains its own tolling provision for persons ‘under legal disability or beyond the seas at the time the claim accrues,’” and concluding that “the matter [whether section 2501 may be tolled] is not free from doubt”
Written by the judges who cited it.
Later courts went against this
Questioned by United States v. Nagalingam, 114 F. App'x 653 (2004)
Although there is some question as to the continued viability of the writ of error coram nobis, see United States v. Beggerly, 524 U.S. 38, 45, 118 S.Ct. 1862, 141 L.Ed.2d 32 (1998), it appears that it has been abolished only in civil actions.
Questioned by United States v. Rankin, 11 F. App'x 496 (2001)
While the district court reasonably questioned the continued viability of the writ of error coram nobis, see United States v. Beggerly, 524 U.S. 38, 45, 118 S.Ct. 1862, 141 L.Ed.2d 32 (1998), it appears that it has been abolished only in civil actions.
Questioned by Craven v. United States, 26 F. App'x 417 (2001)
Although there is some question as to the continued viability of the writ of error coram nobis, see United States v. Beggerly, 524 U.S. 38, 45, 118 S.Ct. 1862, 141 L.Ed.2d 32 (1998), it appears that it has been abolished only in civil actions.
Questioned by United States v. Nyhuis, 40 F. App'x 80 (2002)
Although there is some question as to the continued viability of the writ of error coram nobis, see United States v. Beggerly, 524 U.S. 38, 45, 118 S.Ct. 1862, 141 L.Ed.2d 32 (1998), it appears that it has been abolished only in civil actions.
The opinion
Justice Stevens,
with whom Justice Souter joins, concurring.
As the Court correctly observes, the text of the Quiet Title Act, 28 U. S. C. § 2409a(g), expressly allows equitable tolling by providing that the statute of limitations will not begin to run until the plaintiff or the plaintiff’s predecessor “knew or should have known of the claim of the United States.” Because the Beggerlys were aware of the Government’s claim more than 12 years before they filed this action, the Court correctly holds that there is no basis for any additional equitable tolling in this case. We are not confronted with the question whether a doctrine such as fraudulent concealment or equitable estoppel might apply if the Government were guilty of outrageous misconduct that prevented the plaintiff, though frilly aware of the Government’s claim of title, from knowing of her own claim. Those doctrines are distinct from equitable tolling, see 4 C. Wright & A. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 1056 (Supp. 1998); cf. United States v. Locke, 471 U. S. 84, 94, n. 10 (1985) (referring separately to estoppel and equitable tolling), and conceivably might *50 apply in such an unlikely hypothetical situation. The Court need not (and, therefore, properly does not) address that quite different type of ease. Accordingly, I join the Court’s opinion without reservation.