Court Imposes Strict Deadline in Lawsuit

Court Alerts

The Supreme Court on Tuesday imposed a six-year deadline for suing the federal government in property disputes.

The justices ruled 7-2 that a company waited too long to complain in court that the government took the firm's property.

The decision came in a suit by the John R. Sand & Gravel Co. of Lapeer County, Mich., which sought compensation for the loss of some of the land it had leased from the property owners.

Justice Stephen Breyer said a federal appeals court was correct in raising the deadline question without being asked to do so, and to rule that the company had missed the deadline.

In some instances such as lawsuits against the government, the Supreme Court "has often read the time limits ... as more absolute," Breyer wrote.

Justice John Paul Stevens dissented, saying the majority's decision "has a hollow ring" because the court previously had overturned a precedent that it relied on for Tuesday's decision. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg joined Stevens in dissent.

In the 1990s, the Environmental Protection Agency began blocking access to portions of the property because the agency was overseeing the cleanup of a landfill under the federal Superfund law.

The owners of the 158-acre site in Metamora Township, Mich., had used part of the property for a landfill for tens of thousands of drums of toxic industrial waste.

The dispute is among several recent cases regarding whether filing deadlines under various laws prohibit courts from hearing a case or merely lay down rules on how and when to file a claim.

At issue in the current case is the power of the U.S. Court of Federal Claims under the Tucker Act. The act allows lawsuits against the government for claims involving federal contracts and the taking of private property without fair compensation.

In the suit involving John R. Sand & Gravel Co., the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit said it had no jurisdiction to hear the lawsuit because of the six-year deadline.

Related listings

  • Minnesota Supreme Court denies Blom's third appeal

    Minnesota Supreme Court denies Blom's third appeal

    Court Alerts 01/03/2008

    [##_1L|1344592987.jpg|width="130" height="90" alt=""|_##]For the third time, an appeal by convicted killer Donald Blom has been turned back by the Minnesota Supreme Court. Blom was convicted in the 1999 kidnapping and killing of 19-year-old Moose Lak...

  • Former Ski.com employee expected to plead guilty

    Former Ski.com employee expected to plead guilty

    Court Alerts 12/31/2007

    A former Ski.com salesman plans to plead guilty to reduced counts in a case in which he was accused of tampering with company computers, according to court documents. James M. DiBlasio, 38, of Carmel, Ind., worked for Aspen-based Ski.com from Septemb...

  • Man Convicted in Parents' Death Set Free

    Man Convicted in Parents' Death Set Free

    Court Alerts 12/28/2007

    Martin Tankleff walked out of court a free man for the first time in the 17 years since he was convicted of murdering his parents. But his next step was less clear.Prosecutors have not said whether they will retry Tankleff, who was released on $1 mil...

Grounds for Divorce in Ohio - Sylkatis Law, LLC

A divorce in Ohio is filed when there is typically “fault” by one of the parties and party not at “fault” seeks to end the marriage. A court in Ohio may grant a divorce for the following reasons:
• Willful absence of the adverse party for one year
• Adultery
• Extreme cruelty
• Fraudulent contract
• Any gross neglect of duty
• Habitual drunkenness
• Imprisonment in a correctional institution at the time of filing the complaint
• Procurement of a divorce outside this state by the other party

Additionally, there are two “no-fault” basis for which a court may grant a divorce:
• When the parties have, without interruption for one year, lived separate and apart without cohabitation
• Incompatibility, unless denied by either party

However, whether or not the the court grants the divorce for “fault” or not, in Ohio the party not at “fault” will not get a bigger slice of the marital property.

Business News

New York & New Jersey Family Law Matters We represent our clients in all types of proceedings that include termination of parental rights. >> read