Citation network
Board of Regents Vs. Tomanio
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- May 19, 1980
Citation network · 7-day free trial
Brief every cited case in minutes
Open an 18-section AI Brief on any citation below, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial - no card required.
- 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
- Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
- Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
- Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases
No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account
- Relied / Followed
-
U.S. 478 (1980) U.S. Supreme Court Board of Regents v. TomanioSearch
-
U.S. 478 (1980) Board of Regents v. TomanioSearch
-
federal constitutional claims, but also to apply the New York rule for tolling that statute of limitations. Robertson v. WegmannSearch
-
Johnson v. RailwaySearch
-
that the Board of Regents had not abused their discretion in denying respondent's application for a waiver. Tomanio v. BoardSearch
-
appropriate to toll the running of that statute during the pendency of her state court litigation. Relying on Mizell v. NorthSearch
-
question, which we believe has been all but expressly resolved against the respondent by our decisions in Robertson v. WegmannSearch
-
and Monroe v PapeSearch
-
Limitation borrowing was adopted for civil rights actions filed in federal court as early as 1914, in O'Sullivan v. FelixSearch
-
supra. See Page 446 U. S. 485 also Carlson v. GreenSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
and, as more fully discussed in Johnson v. RailwaySearch
-
In Robertson v. WegmannSearch
-
a federal policy which sometimes necessitates the displacement of an otherwise applicable state rule of law. Carlson v. GreenSearch
-
has not been held to warrant the displacement of state statutes of limitations for civil rights actions. Johnson v. RailwaySearch
-
Express Agency, Inc., supra. In Robertson v. WegmannSearch
-
In Johnson v. RailwaySearch
-
U.S. at 421 U. S. 461 . Adopting the same reasoning, we held in Electrical Workers v. RobbinsSearch
-
Id. at 429 U. S. 236 , quoting Alexander v. Gardner-DenverSearch
-
S. 52 (1974). Applying the converse of this reasoning, this Court found in Occidental Life Ins. Co. of California v. EEOCSearch
-
state proceedings, so that the claim may not even be maintained in federal court unless such resort be had, see Love v. PullmanSearch
-
intent. We find the congressional intent here to be virtually indistinguishable from that found in Johnson v. RailwaySearch
-
Express, supra, and Electrical Workers v. RobbinsSearch
-
to require a litigant to pursue state judicial remedies prior to commencing an action under this section. In Monroe v. PapeSearch
-
Younger v. HarrisSearch
-
See, e.g., the authorities cited in Johnson v. RailwaySearch
-
actions brought in Federal District Court in New York. Romer v. LearySearch
-
Meyer v. FrankSearch
-
of the federal controversy had crystalized before respondent sought review in the state court system. Cf. Bonner v. CoughlinSearch
-
action in federal court. Monroe v. PapeSearch
-
action time-barred even were I confident that application of the New York rules would produce that result. Monroe v PapeSearch
-
that a federal determination may be delayed pending resolution of certain state law issues, see Railroad Comm'n v. PullmanSearch
-
it is worth the time and money, resort to state judicial review under state law would not be inconsistent with Monroe v. PapeSearch
-
or res judicata rules that close the door of the federal courthouse. In the abstention context, England v. LouisianaSearch
-
to a federal forum for his federal claims while giving effect to the concerns and policies underlying Railroad Comm'n v. PullmanSearch
-
See Winters v. LavineSearch
-
Either step would put the State on notice that a federal constitutional challenge loomed, cf. Government Employees v. WindsorSearch
-
for the Fifth Circuit concluded that a state statute of limitations would be tolled in such a situation. Mizell v. NorthSearch
-
not bar a federal civil rights suit dealing with issues not actually litigated in a prior state court suit, Ornstein v. ReganSearch
-
Lombard v. BoardSearch
-
result where a failure to reserve has led only to silence on the federal issue is less obvious. Government Employees v. WindsorSearch
-
In the wake of Bishop v. WoodSearch
-
Cf. Home Telephone & Telegraph Co. v. LosSearch
-
U.S. Supreme Court Board of Regents v. TomanioSearch
-
Tomanio v. BoardSearch
-
Mizell v. NorthSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial