In the Interest of G.A.M., a Child v. Department of Family and Protective Services

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that a state statute of limitations should be borrowed where a plaintiff is being penalized for the exercise of his First Amendment rights, in violation of 29 U.S.C. § 411(a)(2)
• stressing that purpose of six-months limit is to sustain special “federal interests in stable bargaining relationships and in private dispute resolution”
• noting that the “Supreme Court has rejected the argument that uniformity among borrowing limitations is needed among all labor cases ... ”
• noting that “the assurance of vigorous prosecution” by class counsel is a “significant factor” in the Rule 23(a)(4) analysis
• noting that “the assurance of vigorous prosecution” by class counsel is a “significant factor” in the Rule 23(a)(4) analysis
• noting that “the assurance of vigorous prosecution” by class counsel is a “significant factor” in the Rule 23(a)(4) analysis

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).