Skip to main content
DRAFT FOR ATTORNEY REVIEW — NOT FINAL

A Society Without a Name v. Commonwealth of Virginia, 655 F.3d 342 (2011)

Citation
A Society Without a Name v. Commonwealth of Virginia, 655 F.3d 342 (2011)
Parent Document
A Society Without a Name v. Commonwealth of Virginia, 655 F.3d 342 (2011)
Effective Date
2011-08-24

Other Sections in This Document (158)

Full Text

841 chars
Nat’l Adver. Co. v. City of Raleigh, 947 F.2d 1158, 1167 (4th Cir.1991). The limit to this rule is that subsequent effects from an earlier discriminatory act do not begin the limitations period anew; rather, “[t]he challenged action must be repeated within the statute of limitations period.” Id.; see also Jersey Heights Neighborhood Ass’n v. Glendening, 174 F.3d 180, 189 (4th Cir. 1999) (where location of highway was alleged discriminatory act, post-construction refusals to reconsider location or to mitigate impact of highway on neighborhood were mere effects of original alleged violation); Moseke v. Miller & Smith, Inc., 202 F.Supp.2d 492, 507-08 (E.D.Va.2002) (where plaintiffs alleged that condominiums did not comply with FHA, continued existence of noncompliant features were mere effects of original noncompliant construction).