Skip to main content
· 3/5/1982

Sam ROGERS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. KROGER COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee

Citations

  • 669 F.2d 317
  • 28 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 404
  • 33 Fed. R. Serv. 2d 1321
  • 1982 U.S. App. LEXIS 21226
  • 28 Empl. Prac. Dec. (CCH) 32,510

How courts have described this case

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

  • recognizing that dismissal without prejudice is “unavailable” as an alternative to dismissal with prejudice when the “statutes of limitations have run on [a party’s] claims”
  • finding that “explicit warnings are preliminary means or less severe sanctions that may be used to safeguard a court’s undoubted right to control its docket”
  • finding that “explicit warnings are preliminary means or less severe sanctions that may be used to safeguard a court’s undoubted right to control its docket”
  • finding that “explicit warnings are preliminary means or less severe sanctions that may be used to safeguard a court’s undoubted right to control its docket”
  • finding that “explicit warnings are preliminary means or less severe sanctions that may be used to safeguard a court’s undoubted right to control its docket”
  • finding that “explicit warnings are preliminary means or less severe sanctions that may be used to safeguard a court’s undoubted right to control its docket”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Clark, Goldberg, Williams

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.