Legal Opinion
Abelino ARCHULETA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. DUFFY’S INC., Defendant-Appellant
Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
Decided February 15, 1973No. 72-1307PublishedCited by 77 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
LEWIS, Chief Judge.
This is an interlocutory appeal procedurally authorized under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) and taken by Duffy’s Inc. from an order of the District Court for the District of Colorado denying a motion by Duffy’s Inc. to dismiss an amended complaint filed by the plaintiff. Archuleta sought relief under the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq. The present issue is limited to a consideration of whether plaintiff’s claim is barred under the Act by the applicable statute of limitations.1 The trial court *34held that the cited statute did not bar plaintiff’s claim under the…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Love v. Pullman Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1972
- Craig v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1969
- The Travelers Indemnity Company v. United States of America for the Use of Construction Specialties CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1967
- Walter Goodman v. City Products Corporation, Ben Franklin DivisionCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1970
- Glen Graves v. General Insurance Corporation, a Foreign CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1969
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by77 opinions
- David DeMATTEIS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. EASTMAN KODAK COMPANY, Defendant-AppelleeCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1975
- Anne M. DARTT, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SHELL OIL COMPANY, Defendant-AppelleeCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1976
- Adkins v. Nabors Alaska Drilling, Inc.Alaska Supreme Court · 1980
- Karen A. Cooper v. U.S. Postal ServiceCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1984
- Ingram v. KumarCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1978
72 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.