Vaughn v. Northwest Airlines, Inc.
Supreme Court of Minnesota
1Dissent 1
DISSENT
2Dissent · GardebringGardebring, Justice
I respectfully dissent from the majority’s conclusion that the one-year limitations period of the Minnesota Human Rights Act applies to claims under the Air Carrier Access Act (ACAA) and therefore, that Vaughn’s ACAA claim was properly dismissed.
First, I want to note my agreement with , the majority’s initial assertion that “the characterization of the federal claim and the method for selecting a state limitations period is ultimately a matter of federal law.” Op. at 738. The Supreme Court has specifically said that, in enacting the “borrowing provision” of federal civil rights law,…
3Cases cited12 opinions
- Wilson v. GarciaSupreme Court of the United States · 1985
- Board of Regents of Univ. of State of NY v. TomanioSupreme Court of the United States · 1980
- Jane Marie Egerdahl v. Hibbing Community College Minnesota Community College System State of Minnesota Myron Schmidt Anthony Kuznik and Jerry KrauseCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1995
- Marvin D. Baker v. The Board of Regents of the State of Kansas and University of Kansas Medical School--School of MedicineCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1993
- Linda Morse v. University of VermontCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1992
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.