Armstrong v. Martin Marietta Corp.

Because I believe the rule created by the majority is inconsistent with Supreme Court precedent and unjustified by considerations of policy, I respectfully dissent. I would have affirmed the district court by holding that the tolling period ceased, and thus the statute of limitations began to run again, as soon as the district court excluded appellants as members of the Carmichael class action.

The majority’s holding — that the statute of limitations remains tolled through completion of the appeals process in the named plaintiffs’ ease — conflicts with Supreme Court precedent. In American Pipe…