holding that limitations period under § 1983 began to run when plaintiff received final notification from the University that he was being discharged
Summary of this case from I.D. v. Westmoreland School Dist.No. 81-1091.
March 8, 1982, October TERM, 1981.
C.A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 654 F. 2d 856.
holding that limitations period under § 1983 began to run when plaintiff received final notification from the University that he was being discharged
Summary of this case from I.D. v. Westmoreland School Dist.finding picketing in protest of discriminatory practices to be protected activity
Summary of this case from Parker v. Philadelphia Newspapers, Inc.striking down curfew
Summary of this case from Harrison v. Schwartzapplying Missouri law
Summary of this case from Sutherland v. Elpower Corp.applying Missouri law
Summary of this case from Donahue v. Phillips Petroleum Co.noting that the arbitrary and capricious standard "applies to all cases"
Summary of this case from Central States Enterprises, Inc. v. I.C.Capplying Missouri law
Summary of this case from Roth v. Black Decker, U.S., Inc.contrasting disclosure of fact or opinion work product to third parties with common interest and free and voluntary disclosure to third party, including adversary, demonstrating conscious disregard of confidentiality provided by work-product doctrine
Summary of this case from O'Boyle v. Borough of LongportFull title:PAUK v. BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE CITY UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK ET AL
Court:U.S.
Date published: Mar 8, 1982
As indicated in note 1, supra, had she accepted the assignment and then filed a proper complaint, she clearly…
Small v. Inhabitants of City of BelfastBurnett and Wilson make it clear that the two-year limitations period of the Maine Tort Claims Act does not…