Legal Opinion
Goodman v. Best Buy, Inc.
Supreme Court of Minnesota
Decided February 4, 2010No. A07-1820PublishedCited by 20 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
ANDERSON, G. BARRY, Justice.
The issue here is the interpretation of the tolling provision in 28 U.S.C. § 1367(d) (2006), and specifically, the meaning of the words “shall be tolled.”
Respondent Jonathon Goodman brought an action against appellant Best Buy in state court asserting claims under the Federal Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA), 29 U.S.C. §§ 2601-54 (2006), and the Minnesota Human Rights Act (MHRA), Minn.Stat. ch. 363A (2008), for wrongful employment termination. Best Buy removed the case to federal district court; the court granted summary judgment for Best Buy on the FMLA…
2Cases cited21 opinions
- Connecticut National Bank v. GermainSupreme Court of the United States · 1992
- Bailey v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1995
- Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Allapattah Services, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 2005
- Griffin v. Oceanic Contractors, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1982
- Reiter v. Sonotone Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1979
16 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by20 opinions
- Artis v. District of ColumbiaSupreme Court of the United States · 2018
- Gassler v. StateSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2010
- City of Los Angeles v. County of KernCalifornia Supreme Court · 2014
- Molde v. CitiMortgage, Inc.Court of Appeals of Minnesota · 2010
- Minnesota Transitions Charter School v. Commissioner of Minnesota Department of EducationCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 2014
15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.