Palmer v. Portland Ry. L. & P. Co.

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that subsequent denials of client visits based on the permanent suspension of attorney’s visitation rights did not restart the limitations period
• holding that repeated denials of prison visitation rights did not constitute a continuing due process violation because each of the subsequent denials merely implemented the original suspension and did not represent an independent violation
• holding that the continuing impact from past violations is not actionable under the continuing violation doctrine, after concluding that subsequent denials were merely a continuing effect, not new violations
• finding that the plaintiff received “final notice” when the government denied her requests for a hearing
• explaining that statute of limitations for § 1983 16 actions are determined by “the forum state’s statute of limitations for personal injury actions”
• stating that “mere continuing impact from past violations is not actionable” 19 (quotation and emphasis omitted)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).