green
Positive treatment
4.2 score
Treatment trajectory · 1995 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1995
2010
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 16 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
cited
Cited "see"
Hughes v. McMenamon
See Johnson v. Rodriguez, 943 F.2d 104, 107 (1 Cir.,1991), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 1063 , 112 S.Ct. 948 , 117 L.Ed.2d 117 (1992) (construe pro se pleadings liberally).
cited
Cited "see"
Nieves v. McSweeney
See Street v. Vose, 936 F.2d 38, 39-40 (1st Cir.1991), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 1063 , 112 S.Ct. 948 , 117 L.Ed.2d 117 (1992).
cited
Cited "see"
Morales v. Instituto Comercial De Puerto Rico Jurior College
See Street v. Vose, 936 F.2d 38, 39 (1st Cir.1991), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 1063 , 112 S.Ct. 948 , 117 L.Ed.2d 117 ; Johnson v. Rodriguez, 943 F.2d 104, 107 (1st Cir.1991).
discussed
Cited "see"
Parker v. Marcotte
See Street v. Vose, 936 F.2d 38, 40-11 (1st Cir.1991), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 1063 , 112 S.Ct. 948 , 117 L.Ed.2d 117 (1992) (upholding constitutionality of state statute eliminating incarceration-related tolling, where prisoners received only 90 days after enactment within which to file their claims); Smith v. Glasgow, 809 F.Supp. 514, 516 (W.D.Ky.1992) (applying one year limitations from date of repeal of incarceration-related tolling statute); Bell v. Hummel & Pappas, 136 Cal.App.3d 1009 , 1018 n. 10, 186 Cal.Rptr. 688, 695 (1982) (“[a]ppellant here was given a year after January 1, 1978, …
cited
Cited "see"
Rothman v. Worcester
See Street v. Vose, 936 F.2d 38, 39 (1st Cir. 1991), cert. ___ ______ ____ _____ denied, 502 U.S. 1063 (1992).
cited
Cited "see"
Rothman v. Worcester
See Street v. Vose, 936 F.2d 38, 39 (1st Cir.1991), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 1063 (1992).
cited
Cited "see"
Ball v. Carroll
See Street v. Vose, 936 F.2d 38, 39 (1st Cir.1991) cert. denied, 502 U.S. 1063 , 112 S.Ct. 948 , 117 L.Ed.2d 117 (1992); Pagliuca v. City of Boston, 35 Mass. App. 820 (Mass.App.1994).
cited
Cited "see"
Castro v. Oklahoma
See Castro v. State, 814 P.2d 158 (Okla.Crim.App.1991), ce rt. denied, 502 U.S. 1063 , 112 S.Ct. 947 , 117 L.Ed.2d 116 (1992); Castro v. State, 871 P.2d 433 (Okla.Crim.App.1994).
cited
Cited "see"
Castro v. State of Oklahoma
See Castro v. State, 814 P.2d 158 (Okla.Crim.App.1991), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 1063 , 112 S.Ct. 947 , 117 L.Ed.2d 116 (1992); Castro v. State, 871 P.2d 433 (Okla.Crim.App.1994).
cited
Cited "see"
Jones v. State
See Johnson v. Rodriguez, 943 F.2d 104, 107 (1st Cir.), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 1063 , 112 S.Ct. 948 , 117 L.Ed.2d 117 (1991).
discussed
Cited "see"
Barcelo v. Agosto
See Johnson v. Rodriguez, 943 F .2d 104, 109 (1st Cir.1991), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 1063 , 112 S.Ct. 948 , 117 L.Ed.2d 117 (1992) (citing Hewitt v. Helms, 459 U.S. 460 , 103 S.Ct. 864 , 74 L.Ed.2d 675 (1983) (alteration or extinction of a state-created right occurs when the state contravenes clear and unequivocal requirements and thus fails to satisfy either the federal Constitution or state law). 12 Assuming, without deciding, that Section 8 raises the interest in one’s honor and reputation, standing alone, to a constitutional level at which it cannot be abridged by a state actor under any …
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Navedo v. Maloney
See also Johnson v. Rodriguez, 943 F.2d 104, 108 (1st Cir.1991), ce rt. denied, 502 U.S. 1063 , 112 S.Ct. 948 , 117 L.Ed.2d 117 (1992); Wilson v. Brown, 889 F.2d 1195, 1197 (1st Cir.1989) (observing that “a penal system is an essential appendage of the state corpus”).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Madison v. St. Joseph Hosp.
The guestion remains, therefore, when did Madison's claim of discrimination accrue--July 2 or July 3? "[T]he date of accrual, i.e., the date on which the limitations clock begins to tick, is determined by reference to federal law." Muniz-Cabrero v. Ruiz, 23 F.3d 607, 610 (1st Cir. 1994) (citing Rivera-Muriente, supra, 959 F.2d at 353 ); see also Street v. Vose, 936 F.2d 38, 40 (1st Cir. 1991), cert, denied, 502 U.S. 1063 (1992); Rodriguez Narvaez v. Nazario, 895 F.2d 38 , 41 n.5 (1st Cir. 1990).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Madison v. St. Joseph Hospital
The question remains, therefore, when did Madison’s claim of discrimination accrue — July 2 or July 3? “[T]he date of accrual, i.e., the date on which the limitations clock begins to tick, is determined by reference to federal law.” Muniz-Cabrero v. Ruiz, 23 F.3d 607, 610 (1st Cir.1994) (citing Rivera-Muriente, supra, 959 F.2d at 353 ); see also Street v. Vose, 936 F.2d 38, 40 (1st Cir.1991), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 1063 , 112 S.Ct. 948 , 117 L.Ed.2d 117 (1992); Rodriguez Narvaez v. Nazario, 895 F.2d 38 , 41 n. 5 (1st Cir.1990).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
McIntosh v. Flynn
L. ch. 260, 2A (1992); see also ___ ___ ____ Street v. Vose, 936 F.2d 38, 40 (1st Cir. 1991) (per curiam), ______ ____ cert. denied, 502 U.S. 1063 (1992), and the parties agreed before _____ ______ the district court that it was appropriate to borrow from this statute to derive the limitation period.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
McIntosh v. Antonino
Massachusetts prescribes a three-year limitation period for personal injury actions (such as tort suits for false arrest or assault), see Mass.Gen.L. ch. 260, § 2A (1992); see also Street v. Vose, 936 F.2d 38, 40 (1st Cir.1991) (per curiam), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 1063 , 112 S.Ct. 948 , 117 L.Ed.2d 117 (1992), and the parties agreed before the district court that it was appropriate to borrow from this statute to derive the limitation period.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Castro
v.
Oklahoma
v.
Oklahoma
No. 91-6412.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Jan 21, 1992.
502 U.S. 1063
Published
Ct. Crim. App. Okla. Certiorari denied.