green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 1×
3.9 score
“failure to file suit within ninety days after the receipt of a notice from the eeoc renders a plaintiff's action untimely”
Treatment trajectory · 1995 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1995
2010
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 9 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited "but see"
Mercer David Grayson v. K Mart Corporation, Cross-Appellee. Ronald L. Braley v. K Mart Corporation, Cross-Appellee. Tony M. Arrington v. K Mart Corporation, Cross-Appellee. Ricky D. Sallee v. K Mart Corporation, Cross-Appellee. James L. Steadman v. K Mart Corporation, Cross-Appellee. John D. Thompson v. K Mart Corporation, Cross-Appellee. Obediah Sconiers, Movants, Carl Helton, Charles W. Kempton, James E. Taylor, Bob Williams, David Jack Wright v. K Mart Corporation
But see Anderson v. Unisys Corp., 47 F.3d 302, 308-09 (8th Cir.1995) (holding that nonfiling piggybacking plaintiffs who were demoted post-Civil Rights Act may opt into a class so long as the claimant upon whose EEOC charge they are piggybacking files suit within ninety days of receiving a right-to-sue letter from the EEOC), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 116 S.Ct. 299 , 133 L.Ed.2d 205 (1995).
discussed
Cited "but see"
Grayson v. K Mart Corp.
But see Anderson v. Unisys Corp., 47 F.3d 302, 308-09 (8th Cir.1995) (holding that nonfiling piggybacking plaintiffs who were demoted post-Civil Rights Act may opt into a class so long as the claimant upon whose EEOC charge they are piggybacking files suit within ninety days of receiving a right-to-sue letter from the EEOC), cert. denied, - U.S. -, 116 S.Ct. 299 , 133 L.Ed.2d 205 (1995).
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Katherine A. Zotos v. Lindbergh School
failure to file suit within ninety days after the receipt of a notice from the eeoc renders a plaintiff's action untimely
discussed
Cited "see"
Rosemary SCHLUETER, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. ANHEUSER-BUSCH, INC., a Corporation, Defendant—Appellee
We agree. “[F]iling a timely charge of discrimination with the EEOC is not a jurisdictional prerequisite to suit in federal court, but a requirement that, like a statute of limitations, is subject to waiver, estoppel, and equitable tolling.” Zipes v. Trans World Airlines, Inc., 455 U.S. 385, 393 , 102 S.Ct. 1127, 1132 , 71 L.Ed.2d 234 (1982); accord Warren v. Department of Army, 867 F.2d 1156, 1159 (8th Cir.1989). “[Ejquitable tolling is premised on the plaintiffs excusable neglect, which may or may not be attributable to the defendant.” Anderson v. Unisys Corp., 47 F.3d 302, 306 (8th …
discussed
Cited "see"
Rosemary Schlueter v. Anheuser-Busch
We agree. "[F]iling a timely charge of discrimination with the EEOC is not a jurisdictional prerequisite to suit in federal court, but a requirement that, like a statute of limitations, is subject to waiver, estoppel, and equitable tolling." Zipes v. Trans World Airlines, Inc., 455 U.S. 385, 393 (1982); accord Warren v. Department of Army, 867 F.2d 1156, 1159 (8th Cir. 1989). "[E]quitable tolling is premised on the plaintiff's excusable neglect, which may or may not be attributable to the defendant." Anderson v. Unisys Corp., 47 F.3d 302, 306 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 116 S. Ct. 299 (1995).
cited
Cited "see"
Rodney Hopkins v. Tannery West
See Anderson v. Unisys Corp., 47 F.3d 302 , 307-08 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 116 S. Ct. 299 (1995).
cited
Cited "see"
Rodney Tyrone Hopkins v. Tannery West
See Anderson v. Unisys Corp., 47 F.3d 302, 307-08 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 116 S.Ct. 299 (1995).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
American Immigration Lawyers Ass'n v. Reno
Haitian Refugee Ctr., Inc., 953 F.2d at 1513; see also Cuban American Bar Ass'n, Inc. v. Christopher, 43 F.3d 1412, 1429 (11th Cir.) (holding that attorneys did not have *61 First Amendment right of access to interdicted migrants), cert. denied, 516 U.S. 913 , 116 S.Ct. 299 , 133 L.Ed.2d 205 (1995).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Eye v. Fluor Corp.
Dring, id.; see also Anderson v. Unisys Corp., 47 F.3d 302, 306-07 (8th Cir.) (stating that equitable tolling is premised on the plaintiff's excusable neglect, which may or may not be attributable to the defendant), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ____, 116 S.Ct. 299 , 133 L.Ed.2d 205 (1995).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Cuban American Bar Assn., Inc.
v.
Christopher, Secretary of State
v.
Christopher, Secretary of State
No. 95-84.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Oct 10, 1995.
Published
Citer courts: Eighth Circuit (1)
C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.