We must first determine whether the petitioner has upheld the issue of a fair statute of limitations for appeals. The respondent asked the petitioner to waive this error because she first brought it up to the Court of Appeal. We do not agree. Although it was not characterized as a “just toll” theory, the petitioner argued below that public policy required a statute of limitations in this case. The petition justified the broadcasting costs by the fact that his opponent was informed in a timely manner of the claims against him and was not affected by the delay. The petition also asked them to reasonably follow the first appeal, which was rejected after the statute of limitations had expired. These are essentially the same arguments that are now before this court. In addition, the petitioner cited as authority two important cases of fair toll: Burnett v. New York Central R.R., 380 U.S. 424, 85 P. Ct.
1050, 13 L Ed. 2d 941 (1965) and Brooks v. Southern Pacific Co., 105 Ariz. 442, 466 P.2d 736 (1970). Second, the applicant attempted to evade status by invoking the toll agreement and arguing that the defendant had been properly deterred from relying on a prescription defence. Here, the toll agreement spoke for itself. The agreement did not prevent the defendant from asserting the law, since the right was obsolete from the beginning of the toll period. Id. at `7- `8. Remember that the lawyer signed the toll contract in August 2013, but did not announce the toll until months later – in February 2014 – which is more than two years later than the complainant`s alleged complication in January 2012.
The applicants simply failed to explain the express terms of the agreement that the plaintiff became a party to the agreement on February 3, 2014, and the defendant expressly waived “a defence of the statute of limitations that could have been invoked before the toll date.” Id. at `8- `9. If there is a takeaway of this post, that`s it. The clear language of the agreement (and the erroneous timing of the lawyer) made the difference. While a toll agreement seems to benefit a plaintiff in the first place, there are also some good reasons why a defendant wants to enter into a toll agreement. One reason is to give an applicant additional time to assess the feasibility of their application; Without a statute of limitations, an applicant may be forced to take legal action only to meet a deadline. Where litigation can be avoided, it may be advantageous for a defendant to agree on the term limit for a specified period of time or until certain conditions are imposed. We believe that the remedial measures underlying a.S.R. 12-611 that authorize recovery from unlawful death would in this case be offset by a fair toll. In Burnett v.
New York Central R.R., supra, a worker sued his employer for assault under the Federal Employer`s Liability Act (FELA), 45 U.S.C. FELA helps heal bodily harm and illegitimate death. Id. The Supreme Court held that the toll was appropriate because it promoted the purpose of the law to man and correction. Burnett, supra. In Brooks v. Southern Pacific Co., 105 Ariz. 442, 466 P.2d 736 (1970), referring to Burnett, we came to the conclusion that the limitation period in an FELA injury action was due to the applicant`s incompetence, as this had the effect of remedying the beneficial problems of the law. We conclude that Burnett`s first test is over. You may also be wondering, “What if I rely on an executive or judicial decision that will later be considered unconstitutional?” One possibility might be to seek relief according to the doctrine of fair toll – the suspension of the statute of limitations on the basis of a right to fairness.