Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/524bv.pdf
Page Number: 84.0

524US1

Unit: $U73

[09-06-00 17:32:49] PAGES PGT: OPIN

Cite as: 524 U. S. 38 (1998)

39

Opinion of the Court

full disclosure to the District Court regarding the land grant obviously
does not approach this demanding standard. Pp. 42–47.

(b) Equitable tolling is not available in a QTA suit. Such tolling is
not permissible where it is inconsistent with the relevant statute’s text.
The QTA’s express 12-year statute of limitations runs from the date the
plaintiff or his predecessor in interest “knew or should have known” of
28 U. S. C. § 2409(g). Thus, the Act has al-
the United States’ claim.
ready effectively allowed for equitable tolling. See Irwin v. Depart-
ment of Veterans Affairs, 498 U. S. 89, 96. Given this fact and the
QTA’s unusually generous limitations period, extension of the statutory
period would be unwarranted. Pp. 47–49.

114 F. 3d 484, reversed and remanded.

Rehnquist, C. J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court. Ste-
vens, J., ﬁled a concurring opinion, in which Souter, J., joined, post,
p. 49.

Paul R. Q. Wolfson argued the cause for the United
States. With him on the briefs were Solicitor General
Waxman, Deputy Solicitor General Schiffer, Deputy Solici-
tor General Kneedler, Martin W. Matzen, William B. Laza-
rus, John D. Leshy, and Margaret P. Fondry.

Ernest G. Taylor, Jr., argued the cause for respondents.
With him on the brief were Robert M. Arentson, Jr., and
Nancie G. Marzulla.

Chief Justice Rehnquist delivered the opinion of the

Court.

In 1979, the United States brought a quiet title action (the
Adams litigation) in the Southern District of Mississippi
against respondents and nearly 200 other defendants. On
the eve of trial, the Government and respondents entered
into a settlement whereby title to the disputed land was
quieted in favor of the United States in return for a payment
Judgment was entered based on this settle-
of $208,175.87.
ment agreement.
In 1994, some 12 years after that judg-
ment, respondents sued in the District Court to set aside the
settlement agreement and obtain a damages award for the
disputed land. Their claims for relief were based on the