Enbridge Energy, LP v. Nessel · ¶36

Enbridge also attempts to distinguish this case from Arel lano on the ground that the timing rule at issue in Arellano had 16 distinct exceptions while § 1446(b)(1) has fewer, and points out that this Court has found equitable tolling to apply even when a deadline has an explicit exception. See, e. g., Holland, 560 U. S., at 647–648. Enbridge is correct on the numbers, but this inquiry is not a mere counting exercise. In Holland, the key point was not that there was only one exception. It was that the exception at issue (tolling the time for seeking federal habeas relief while an application for state postconviction relief is pending) was “easily explained” by a “special need for an express provision” accounting for state-court litigation, which “undermine[d]” any inference that Congress did not intend for equitable tolling more broadly to apply. Id., at 648; see Young, 535 U. S., at 53…

preliminary print (page proof)
Source edition
Passage preview. Read in context for the complete text, notes and references.