Cluster 535298 (1990)
green
· 62 citation events
across 11 courts.
Showing the 20 strongest citers on record
(one row per citing case, strongest signal kept).
Treatment trajectory · 1990 → 2026 · click a year to view the case as of then
199020082026
Sort:
By significance ·
Most recent
green
Janice Draper v. Timothy Martin (2011)
Dist., 894 F.2d 257, 259 (7th Cir.1990); Chardon v. Fernandez, 454 U.S. 6, 8 , 102 S.Ct. 28 , 70 L.Ed.2d 6 (1981); Del.
green
Jackson, James F. v. Rockford Housing (2000)
Dist., 894 F.2d 257, 261 (7th Cir. 1990).
green
James F. JACKSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ROCKFORD HOUSING AUTHORITY, Defendant-Appellee (2000)
Dist., 894 F.2d 257, 261 (7th Cir.1990).
green
Greer v. Board of Education of the City of Chicago (2001)
Kuemmerlein v. Board of Educ. of Madison, 894 F.2d 257, 261 (7th Cir.1990).
green
Greer v. Board Of Education Of The City Of Chicago (2001)
Kuemmerlein v. Board of Educ. of Madison, 894 F.2d 257, 261 (7th Cir. 1990).
green
EEOC v. North Gibson School (2001)
Dist., 894 F.2d 257, 259-60 (7th Cir. 1990) (holding that the statute of limitations begins to run on the date on which the plaintiffs received notice of their termination, not on their actual termination date); Mull v. Arco Durethene Plastics, Inc., 784 F.2d 284, 290 (7th Cir. 1986) ("[T]he significant date for purposes of Ricks and the limitations period is that date upon which the employee receives notice of termination and not the date upon which the termination becomes …
holding that the statute of limitations begins to run on the date on which the plaintiffs received notice of their termination, not on their actual termination date
Dist., 894 F.2d 257, 259-60 (7th Cir.1990) (holding that the statute of limitations begins to run on the date on which the plaintiffs received notice of their termination, not on their actual termination date); Mull v. ARCO Durethene Plastics, Inc., 784 F.2d 284, 290 (7th Cir.1986) (“[.T]he significant date for purposes of Ricks and the limitations period is that date upon which the employee receives notice of termination and not the date upon which the termination becomes e…
School District, 894 F.2d 257, 259 (7th Cir.1990) (act is receipt of layoff notice).
green
Evenson v. Osmose Wood Preserving Company Of America (1990)
Fed.R.Civ.P. 11 would arguably require sanctions against a party who files suit based on nothing more than the kind of suspicions Evenson had in the present case. 5 30 While we are aware of the value of bright lines in rules of procedure, see, e.g., Kuemmerlein, 894 F.2d at 260, it is futile to try to draw firm lines in the context of the discovery rule in these circumstances.
green
Evenson v. Osmose Wood Preserving Co. of America (1990)
Fed.R.Civ.P. 11 would arguably require sanctions against a party who files suit based on nothing more than the kind of suspicions Evenson had in the present case. 5 While we are aware of the value of bright lines in rules of procedure, see, e.g., Kuemmerlein, 894 F.2d at 260, it is futile to try to draw firm lines in the context of the discovery rule in these circumstances.
green
Asllani v. Board of Educ. of City of Chicago (1994)
Kuemmerlein v. Board of Education of the Madison Metropolitan School District, 894 F.2d 257, 261 (7th Cir.1990).
Dist., 894 F.2d 257, 261 (7th Cir.1990) (citation omitted).
green
Johnson & Johnson Medical, Inc. v. Sanchez (1996)
Dist., 894 F.2d 257, 260 (7th Cir.1990); Lawson v. Burlington Indus., Inc., 683 F.2d 862, 863-64 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 944 , 103 S.Ct. 257 , 74 L.Ed.2d 201 (1982).
green
Van Pool v. City and County of San Francisco (1990)
School Dist., 894 F.2d 257, 259 (7th Cir.1990) (statute of limitations in employment discrimination action runs from date of notice, not from date of actual termination).
green
Shelton v. Ernst & Young, LLP (2001)
School Dist., 894 F.2d 257, 259-60 (7th Cir.1990) (finding that the cause of action began to accrue on the day that plaintiffs received the layoff decision, and not on the date of the actual termination).
Dist., 894 F.2d 257, 261 (7th Cir.1990); 29 C.F.R. § 1601.13 (Title VII), § 1626.7 (ADEA).
green
Wolf v. City of Chicago Heights (1993)
Kuemmerlein v. Board of Education of Madison Metropolitan School Dist., 894 F.2d 257, 261 (7th Cir.1990).
green
Ruh v. Samerjan (1993)
School Dist., 894 F.2d 257, 259 (7th Cir.1990); Gray v. Locke, 885 F.2d 399, 407-09 (7th Cir.1989), cert. denied, 494 U.S. 1029 , 110 S.Ct. 1476 , 108 L.Ed.2d 613 (1990).
green
McCoy v. WGN TELEVISION (1990)
As Chardon v. Fernandez, 454 U.S. 6, 8 , 102 S.Ct. 28, 29 , 70 L.Ed.2d 6 (1981) (emphasis in original) said, the time of a violation is the “discriminatory act, not the point at which the consequences of the act become painful.” 10 Kuemmerlein v. Board of Education of the Madison Metropolitan School District, 894 F.2d 257, 260 (7th Cir.1990) explains: Plaintiffs actual termination only made painful the consequences of the discriminatory act: the allegedly illegal act was the…
green
Cohn v. A.E. Staley Manufacturing Co. (1990)
School Dist., 894 F.2d 257, 260 (7th Cir.1990).