Citation network
Burnett Vs. Grattan
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Jun 27, 1984
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. 42 (1984) U.S. Supreme Court Burnett v. GrattanSearch
-
U.S. 42 (1984) Burnett v. GrattanSearch
-
the suit as time-barred. The Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, relying on its previous decision in McNutt v. DukeSearch
-
occasions, this Court has rejected arguments that a particular federal statute of limitations applied, O'Sullivan v. FelixSearch
-
emphasizing the independence of the remedial scheme established by the Reconstruction Era Acts. See, e.g., Johnson v. RailwaySearch
-
Jones v. AlfredSearch
-
turn to state law for statutes of limitations in actions brought under these civil rights statutes. See, e.g., Chardon v. FumeroSearch
-
state statutes of limitations should govern a suit brought under the Civil Rights Acts. For example, in Johnson v. RailwaySearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
state statute of limitations. In Board of Regents v. TomanioSearch
-
Johnson v. RailwaySearch
-
they belong in court. McDonald v. WestSearch
-
also reflects a policy assessment of the state causes of action to which it applies. Occidental Life Insurance Co. v. EEOCSearch
-
of persons whose civil rights have been violated, and prevention of the abuse of state power. Board of Regents v. TomanioSearch
-
federal constitutional or statutory rights are abridged may recover damages or secure injunctive relief. See Mitchum v. FosterSearch
-
McNeese v. BoardSearch
-
Monroe v. PapeSearch
-
Circuits have adopted positions similar to that taken by the Court of Appeals in this case. See, e.g., Childers v. IndependentSearch
-
Zuniga v. AMFACSearch
-
Garcia v. WilsonSearch
-
Chambers v. OmahaSearch
-
Mason v. Owens-IllinoisSearch
-
Garner v. StephensSearch
-
Waters v. WisconsinSearch
-
action), cert. denied, 400 U.S. 911 (1970). But see Warner v. PerrinoSearch
-
Green v. TenSearch
-
Warren v. NormanSearch
-
S. 855 (1975). The First Circuit has upheld reliance upon administrative statutes of limitations. See, e.g., Burns v. SullivanSearch
-
cert. denied, 449 U.S. 893 (1980). The First Circuit has followed Burns in Carter v. SupermarketsSearch
-
Holden v. CommissionSearch
-
Hussey v. SullivanSearch
-
and its complementary role in the scheme of federal civil rights legislation, see Moor v. CountySearch
-
a 6-month administrative statute of limitations in the labor context, DelCostello v. TeamstersSearch
-
for whatever reason, sees no need for national uniformity in all aspects of civil rights cases. See Robertson v. WegmannSearch
-
applicable to actions brought under one or all of the Reconstruction Civil Rights Acts. See, e.g., Johnson v. DavisSearch
-
actions as discriminating against federal cause of action). See also Campbell v. HaverhillSearch
-
Pauk v. BoardSearch
-
and 1985(3). The Court of Appeals in McNutt v. DukeSearch
-
that makes such a claim invariably more difficult to investigate than a claim asserted under state law. Cf. Johnson v. RailwaySearch
-
of limitations over an alternative, but shorter, period, a type of approach we have rejected before. Cf. Robertson v. WegmannSearch
-
fact that Congress has seen no need to establish a uniform approach in federal civil rights actions. Board of Regents v. TomanioSearch
-
id. at 446 U. S. 488 . Finally, in Johnson v. RailwaySearch
-
of litigation seem materially the same as in this case. DelCostello v. TeamstersSearch
-
U.S. Supreme Court Burnett v. GrattanSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial