Robinson v. Louisville & Nashville Railroad

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 time-barred § 1988 claim was not frivolous and did not warrant attorney fees because while incorrect, the plaintiff’s “erroneous assumptions [did] not rise to the level to warrant an award of attorneys’ fees against him under Section 1988”
• denying award of attorney’s fees were plaintiff’s claims were “clearly time-barred” but where plaintiff raised “extremely weak . . . legal theories that would support extending the statute of limitations”
• “Amendment would likely be futile if, for example, the claims the plaintiff sought to add would be barred by the applicable statute of limitations.” (quoting Grace v. Rosenstock, 228 F.3d 40, 53 (2d Cir. 2000))
• “Amendment would likely be futile if, for example, the claims the plaintiff sought to add would be barred by the applicable statute of limitations.” (quoting Grace v. Rosenstock, 228 F.3d 40, 53 (2d Cir. 2000))

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).