green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 1×
5.2 score
“he purpose of the notice provision, which is to encourage settlement of discrimination disputes through conciliation and voluntary compliance, would be defeated if a complainant could litigate a claim not previously presented to and investigated by the eeoc”
Treatment trajectory · 1986 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1986
2006
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 30 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
Huskins v. Pepsi Cola of Odgensburg Bottlers, Inc.
he purpose of the notice provision, which is to encourage settlement of discrimination disputes through conciliation and voluntary compliance, would be defeated if a complainant could litigate a claim not previously presented to and investigated by the eeoc
cited
Cited "see"
Kent v. General Motors Regional Personnel Center-East Region
See Miller v. International Telephone & Telegraph Corp., 755 F.2d 20, 25 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 851 , 106 S.Ct. 148 , 88 L.Ed.2d 122 (1985).
cited
Cited "see"
Ghose v. Century 21, Inc.
See Miller v. ITT Corp., 755 F.2d 20 , 26 (2d Cir.1984), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 851 , 106 S.Ct. 148 , 88 L.Ed.2d 122 (1985).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Conner
See United States v. Nabors, 761 F.2d 465, 469 (8th Cir.) (finding that a casual guest did not have a legitimate privacy interest at a host’s home), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 851 , 106 S.Ct. 148 , 88 L.Ed.2d 123 (1985); United States v. Haydel, 649 F.2d 1152, 1155 (5th Cir.) (finding that the defendant possessed a legitimate expectation of privacy in his parents’ home), corrected on reh’g on other grounds, 664 F.2d 84 (5th Cir.1981), cert. denied, 455 U.S. 1022 , 102 S.Ct. 1721 , 72 L.Ed.2d 140 (1982); and compare Gomez, 16 F.3d at 256 (holding that a defendant did not have a sufficient exp…
discussed
Cited "see"
Shaver v. Corry Hiebert Corp.
See Miller v. International Telephone & Telegraph Corp., 755 F.2d 20, 23-25 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 851 , 106 S.Ct. 148 , 88 L.Ed.2d 122 (1985) (single date on form is probative of absence of failure-to-rehire claim).
discussed
Cited "see"
Eisert v. Town of Hempstead
See Rodriguez v. Village of Island Park, 1991 WL 128568 , *7 (E.D.N.Y.1991), citing, Miller v. International Telephone & Telegraph Corp., 755 F.2d 20, 24 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 851 , 106 S.Ct. 148 , 88 L.Ed.2d 122 (1985) (rejecting the plaintiffs’ claims in a lawsuit brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981-1983 and RICO that their cause of action did not accrue until they realized that an adverse housing decision was discriminatory as a result of a newspaper article).
discussed
Cited "see"
Cruz v. Ecolab Pest Elimination Division, Ecolab Inc.
See Miller v. International Telephone & Telegraph Corp., 755 F.2d 20 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 851 , 106 S.Ct. 148 , 88 L.Ed.2d 122 , reh’g denied, 474 U.S. 1015 , 106 S.Ct. 552 , 88 L.Ed.2d 479 (1985); Almendral v. New York State Office of Mental Health, 743 F.2d 963 (2d Cir.1984); Ritzie v. City University of New York, 703 F.Supp. 271, 278 (S.D.N.Y.1989); Torriero v. Olin Corp., 684 F.Supp. 1165, 1170 (S.D.N.Y.1988); Gilliard v. New York Public Library System, 597 F.Supp. 1069, 1079 (S.D.N.Y.1984).
cited
Cited "see"
Vesey v. Grover
See Miller v. International Telephone And Telegraph Corporation, 755 F.2d 20, 23 (2d Cir.1985), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 851 , 106 S.Ct. 148 , 88 L.Ed.2d 122 (1985).
cited
Cited "see"
Tolliver v. Xerox Corp.
See Miller v. International Telephone and Telegraph Corp., 755 F.2d 20, 23-24 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 851 , 106 S.Ct. 148 , 88 L.Ed.2d 122 (1985).
cited
Cited "see"
Peter N. Tolliver, Leon A. Wiater, Helen A. Fordham, Donald Schaefer, Walter L. Pidek, James Carroll, Lawrence L. Travis, William Brant, James Dammen, Charles Dolcimascolo, John L. Bennett, Joseph G. Golossi, Harold Siebert, Alfred E. Rizzari, Alfonse Oliveri, Paul J. Mittak, and Richard B. Van Maaren v. Xerox Corporation, a New York Corporation, Paul F. Braun v. Xerox Corporation
See Miller v. International Telephone and Telegraph Corp., 755 F.2d 20, 23-24 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 851 , 106 S.Ct. 148 , 88 L.Ed.2d 122 (1985).
discussed
Cited "see"
Gentile v. County of Suffolk
See Cranberg v. Consumers Union, Inc., 756 F.2d 382, 391 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 850 , 106 S.Ct. 148 , 88 L.Ed.2d 122 (1985) (not only does Rule 611(a) put affirmative obligation on the judge to avoid consumption of time, but, as common law judge, he or she has overall responsibility to see that the trial is not subject to delay) (citing Ruiz v. Estelle, 679 F.2d 1115, 1129 (5th Cir.1982), modified, 688 F.2d 266 (5th Cir.1982), cert. denied, 460 U.S. 1042 , 103 S.Ct. 1438 , 75 L.Ed.2d 795 (1983)); In re Summa T Corp., 73 B.R. 388, 392 (Ark. 1987) (Rule 1006).
discussed
Cited "see"
Ballard Medical Products v. Concord Laboratories, Inc.
See In Re Cordis, 769 F.2d 733 (Fed.Cir.), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 851 , 106 S.Ct. 148 , 88 L.Ed.2d 122 (1985) (holding permanent and continuous presence in forum is a regular and established place of business in that forum).
cited
Cited "see"
Bates v. Board of Regents of Northern New Mexico Community College
See Miller v. International Telephone and Telegraph Corp., 755 F.2d 20, 24 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 851 , 106 S.Ct. 148 , 88 L.Ed.2d 122 (1985).
discussed
Cited "see"
LaBeach v. Nestle Co., Inc.
See Defendants’ Answer, Affirmative Defense No. 7. 7 Moreover, plaintiff has failed to contend that he was “actively misled by [Nestle], ... was prevented in some extraordinary way from exercising his rights, or ... asserted his rights in the wrong forum, in which event tolling of the time bar might be permitted as a matter of fairness.” Miller v. International Telephone and Telegraph Corp., 755 F.2d 20, 24 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 106 S.Ct. 148 , 88 L.Ed.2d 122 (1985) (citation omitted).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Roger Yarns
See United States v. Nabors, 761 F.2d 465, 471 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S. —, 106 S.Ct. 148 , 88 L.Ed.2d 123 (1985) (abuse of discretion standard governs determinations under Fed.R.Evid. 404(b)); United States v. Bentley, 706 F.2d 1498, 1510 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 830 , 104 S.Ct. 107 , 78 L.Ed.2d 110 (1983) (similar standard under Fed.R.Evid. 608(b)).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Terry Patrick Landrum
See United States v. Nabors, 761 F.2d 465, 469 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 106 S. Ct. 148 (1985); United States v. Cassity, 720 F.2d 451 (6th Cir. 1983), vacated and remanded on other grounds, 104 S. Ct. 3581 (1984). 13 The magistrate determined that defendant had no legitimate expectation of privacy in the searched premises belonging to Rice, although he accepted defendant's contention that at one time he resided at that residence.
cited
Cited "see"
Mull v. Arco Durethene Plastics, Inc.
See Miller v. International Telephone & Telegraph Corp., 755 F.2d 20, 24 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 106 S.Ct. 148 , 88 L.Ed.2d 122 (1985). .
discussed
Cited "see"
40 Fair empl.prac.cas. 311, 39 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 35,971 E. Kingsley Mull v. Arco Durethene Plastics, Inc., Successor to Arco Polymers, Inc., and Atlantic Richfield Company, Appeal of Eugene Crane, Bankruptcy Trustee in the Matter of E. Kingsley Mull
See Miller v. International Telephone & Telegraph Corp., 755 F.2d 20, 24 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 106 S.Ct. 148 , 88 L.Ed.2d 122 (1985). 7 Contrary to the trustee's assertion, the district court's decision in Monnig v. Kennecott Corp., 603 F.Supp. 1035 (D.Conn.1985), is not inconsistent with the result we reach in this case.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Moorehead v. New York City Transit Authority
June 19, 1997); see also Miller v. IT & T Corp., 755 F.2d 20 , 23 (2d Cir.1985) (limitations period begins to run “on the date when the employee receives a definite notice of the termination”), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 851 , 106 S.Ct. 148 , 88 L.Ed.2d 122 (1985).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Thompson v. Federal Reserve Bank of New York
June 19, 1997); see also Miller v. IT & T Corp., 755 F.2d 20 , 23 (2d Cir.1985) (limitations period begins to run “on the date when the employee receives a definite notice of the termination”), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 851 , 106 S.Ct. 148 , 88 L.Ed.2d 122 (1985).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Gulino v. Board of Education of the City School District of New York
Under that doctrine, when a plaintiff alleges a continuing violation of Title VII, as opposed to discrete violations, “the plaintiff is entitled to bring suit challenging all conduct that was a part of that violation, even conduct that occurred outside the limitations period.” Cornwell v. Robinson, 23 F.3d 694, 704 (2d Cir.1994); see also, Gomes v. Avco, 964 F.2d 1330, 1333 (“[T]he normal statute of limitations rules under Title VII do not apply where ‘employees are hired or refused employment [or promotion] pursuant to a continuous pattern or policy of discrimination’ ” (quoting M…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Yoonessi v. State University of New York
See Delaware State College v. Ricks, supra, 449 U.S. at 258 , 101 S.Ct. at 504 ; see also Miller v. IT & T Corp., 755 F.2d 20, 24 (2d Cir.) (“[T]he mere possibility that the decision might be reversed [i]s not enough to label it advisory or ineffective for time-bar purposes.”), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 851 , 106 S.Ct. 148 , 88 L.Ed.2d 122 (1985).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Sandom v. Travelers Mortgage Services, Inc.
See, e.g., Miller v. International Telephone and Telegraph Corp., 755 F.2d 20, 25-26 (2d Cir.1985), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 851 , 106 S.Ct. 148 , 88 L.Ed.2d 122 (1985) (claim of failure to re-hire is sufficiently distinct from claim in the EEOC charge alleging discriminatory discharge); Ritzie v. City University of New York, 703 F.Supp. 271, 278-79 (S.D.N.Y.1989) (administrative complaint filed before state agency, which only detailed instances of alleged discrimination involving another co-worker and within a discrete time period, was not reasonably related to a subsequent claim alleging discr…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
James Johnson and Anne Johnson, Dresser Industries, Intervenor-Appellant v. Helmerich & Payne, Inc.
See also Reese v. Mercury Marine, 793 F.2d 1416 , 1423 (5th Cir.1986) and Cranberg v. Consumers Union of U.S., Inc., 756 F.2d 382, 391 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 850 , 106 S.Ct. 148 , 88 L.Ed.2d 122 (1985).
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
47 Fair empl.prac.cas. 544, 43 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 37,221, 45 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 37,656 Stanley M. Janikowski v. Bendix Corporation, a Delaware Corporation
See also Miller v. IT & T Corp., 755 F.2d 20 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 851 , 106 S.Ct. 148 , 88 L.Ed.2d 122 (1985), which held that a notice of termination starts the statute of limitations.
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Janikowski v. Bendix Corp.
See also Miller v. IT & T Corp., 755 F.2d 20 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 851 , 106 S.Ct. 148 , 88 L.Ed.2d 122 (1985), which held that a notice of termination starts the statute of limitations.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Gerena
See also United States v. Nabors, 761 F.2d 465, 468-69 (8th Cir.1985), ce rt. denied, — U.S. -, 106 S.Ct. 148 , 88 L.Ed.2d 123 (1985) (discussing the broad spectrum of factual situations in which standing has been acknowledged or denied).
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. McKnight
See also, United States v. *115 Nabors, 761 F. (2d) 465 (C.A. 8th 1985), cert. den., _ U. S. _, 106 S. Ct. 148 , 88 L.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Gregory Keith Smith (85-5518), Eric Ross Helton (85-5519), Defendants
See also United States v. Nabors, 761 F.2d 465, 468 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 106 S.Ct. 148 , 88 L.Ed.2d 123 (1985); United States v. Adamo, 742 F.2d 927, 947 (6th Cir.1984), cert. denied, -U.S.-, 105 S.Ct. 971 , 83 L.Ed.2d 975 (1985). .
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Cordis Corp.
v.
Medtronic, Inc.
v.
Medtronic, Inc.
No. 85-262.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Oct 7, 1985.
Cited by 1 opinion | Published
Citer courts: N.D. New York (1)
C. A. Fed. Cir. Certiorari denied.