Velikonja v. Ashcroft

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that because the “plaintiff did not receive a right-to-sue letter resulting from [her] complaint until . . . only three days before the close of (…continued) 539 F. Supp. 2d at 351; Solomon, No. 08-5152 (D.C. Cir. Dec. 12, 2008
• concluding, in answer to “whether plaintiff was required to amend her complaint” that “plaintiff is not barred by the doctrine of res judicata from litigating [events that occurred after her first suit was filed]”
• “The law in this Circuit does not require constant amendments each time plaintiff learns of a new action that could be' claimed to be retaliatory or discriminatory.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).