Anderson v. Acme Markets, Inc.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• concluding plaintiff's employment claims under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981 and 1985(3) accrued when the claims became ascertainable, i.e., the “date of the alleged adverse employment action”
• dismissing debtor for lack of standing, but dismissing the case “without prejudice to the right of the Trustee in Bankruptcy to be substituted as a party-plaintiff in the event the Bankruptcy Court reopens the bankruptcy proceedings”
• “Because plaintiff failed to schedule or otherwise identify his Title VII claims in his amended Chapter 7 petition, ... and because those claims are part of the bankruptcy estate, only the Trustee in Bankruptcy, as the sole representative of the estate, has standing to pursue the claims.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).