Case Citator › Holmberg v. Armbrecht

Holmberg v. Armbrecht

Is it still good law? What later courts have actually done to this case.

Limited by some courts
Court
Supreme Court of the United States
Citation
327 U.S. 392
Decided
Confirmed treatments
2
Flagged citations read
108 of 108
Citing cases (total)
108
Treatment dates
1993–2019
Limited by some courts
At least one reviewed court has limited this case’s holding to narrower facts or a narrower rule. No reviewed court has overruled it. Holmberg v. Armbrecht's equitable tolling rule has been limited for challenges to Railway Labor Act arbitration awards and questioned by the Fifth Circuit. All 108 flagged citations have been read.
More on how this was screened

The two confirmed treatments are listed below; other citing courts continued to apply its rule on concealed fraud or found the factual requirements unmet.

Every treatment on this page is written from the citing opinion itself, with a verbatim quote, never copied from a commercial citator. A citation flagged by our screen but not shown here was read and found not to weaken this case.

108 later cases cite Holmberg v. Armbrecht; 108 of those citations sat close to treatment language and were flagged for reading, and all of them have been read. Citations that did not sit near treatment language were not flagged and were not read one by one, so a court that weakened this case without using any of that language would not appear here.

Relying on Holmberg v. Armbrecht?

This page shows what later courts did to it. Ask about your specific facts and see whether it still carries your argument, with citations you can check.

Treatments

Limited

  • The bankruptcy court held that Holmberg's equitable tolling rule does not extend to the Railway Labor Act's ten-day period for challenging an arbitration award.

    Krakowski v. American Airlines, Inc. (In re AMR Corp.) · U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York · filed

    Citing to Holmberg v. Armbrecht , 327 U.S. 392, 66 S.Ct. 582, 90 L.Ed. 743 (1946), the Plaintiffs argue that equitable tolling applies to the RLA because "[t]his equitable doctrine is read into every federal statute of limitation." ... The Plaintiffs' position on tolling is incorrect as a matter of law and fact. To begin with, case law in this jurisdiction prohibits equitable tolling of the 10-day statute of limitations for seeking to vacate an arbitration award under Section 9 of the RLA, 45 U.S.C. § 159, Second.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Questioned

  • The Fifth Circuit doubted whether Holmberg's federal tolling rule still governed when a court borrowed a state limitations period.

    F.D.I.C. v. Dawson · Fifth Circuit · filed

    We are not convinced that the Bryan court is correct in its statement that federal equitable tolling principles apply when federal courts borrow state statutes of limitations. As the Seventh Circuit has recently noted, the continued vitality of Holmberg and its progeny is in doubt after the Supreme Court’s decisions in Board of Regents v. Tomanio, 446 U.S. 478, 100 S.Ct. 1790, 64 L.Ed.2d 440 (1980), and Johnson v. Railway Express Agency, 421 U.S. 454, 95 S.Ct. 1716, 44 L.Ed.2d 295 (1975).
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Does this case still carry your argument?

Describe your facts. Ezel reads Holmberg v. Armbrecht and the cases that treated it, then tells you whether it still holds for your situation, with citations.

Opens in Ezel Pro.

  • Checks the law as it stands today, not only this page
  • Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
  • Chat, drafting and research in one workspace