Legal Opinion

Regents of the University of Minnesota v. Raygor

Supreme Court of Minnesota

Decided January 4, 2001No. C1-99-1140PublishedCited by 8 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

BLATZ, Chief Justice. .

This ease raises the issue of whether the tolling provision of the federal supplemental jurisdiction statute, codified at 28 U.S.C. § 1367(d) (1993), applies to toll the statute of limitations for Minnesota Human Rights Act claims against the Regents of the University of Minnesota during the time the state law claims were pending in federal court. Respondents Lance Raygor and James Goodchild brought this action against appellant Regents of the University of Minnesota (University) alleging age discrimination in violation of the Minnesota Human Rights Act (MHRA).…

2Cases cited18 opinions

  1. United Mine Workers of America v. GibbsSupreme Court of the United States · 1966
  2. Kentucky v. GrahamSupreme Court of the United States · 1985
  3. Pennhurst State School and Hospital v. HaldermanSupreme Court of the United States · 1984
  4. Seminole Tribe of Florida v. FloridaSupreme Court of the United States · 1996
  5. Insurance Corp. of Ireland v. Compagnie Des Bauxites De GuineeSupreme Court of the United States · 1982

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

3Cited by8 opinions

  1. Raygor v. Regents of the University of MinnesotaSupreme Court of the United States · 2000
  2. State of Washington v. Donald J. TrumpCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2017
  3. Turner v. KightCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 2008
  4. Breaker v. Bemidji State UniversityCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 2017
  5. Devillers v. Auto Club Ins. Ass'nMichigan Supreme Court · 2005

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

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

Powered by the Exa API