Legal Opinion

STEPHANIE C. ARTIS v. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

District of Columbia Court of Appeals

Decided April 7, 2016No. 15-CV-0243PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

PRYOR, Senior Judge:

Appellant, Stephanie Artis, asks us to reverse the trial court’s ruling on appel-lee’s, the District of Columbia (the District), motion to dismiss because, she argues, it misinterpreted the word “tolling” in 28 U.S.C. § 1367(d), and, as a consequence, erroneously limited her time to file her claim in Superior Court. Jurisdictions differ as to the meaning of “tolling” in 28 U.S.C. § 1367(d), and we consider the term to be ambiguous. In light of that ambiguity, we conclude that the “grace period” approach, advocated by the appel-lee, is more consistent with statute’s context…

2Cases cited28 opinions

  1. Gonzaga University v. DoeSupreme Court of the United States · 2002
  2. Medtronic, Inc. v. LohrSupreme Court of the United States · 1996
  3. Dolan v. United States Postal ServiceSupreme Court of the United States · 2006
  4. Bates v. Dow Agrosciences LLCSupreme Court of the United States · 2005
  5. Hedges v. MuscoCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 2000

23 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Artis v. District of ColumbiaSupreme Court of the United States · 2018
  2. Underwood v. Mercy Health Partners N., L.L.C.Ohio Court of Appeals · 2022
  3. McCall v. Department of Motor VehiclesDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 2017

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API