Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
6 North Dakota opinions name it 1 courts 1989–2013 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by North Dakota courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
White v. North Dakota Workers Compensation Bureaugreen2 sentences1992Evjen v. North Dakota Workers Compensation Bureau, supra. In White , we stated that “NDCC 65-05-01 requires knowledge of a compensable injury to begin the period for filing a claim.” White, supra at 910 . 1992In White v. North Dakota Workers Compensation Bureau, 441 N.W.2d 908, 910 (N.D.1989), we held that Section 65-05-01, N.D.C.C., “requires knowledge of a compensable injury to begin the period for filing a claim.” The Bureau found that Grotte “reasonably knew the work relatedness of his condition in November of 1987.” Implicit in that finding is that Grotte knew he had a compensable injury by November 1987. | 1 | 2 |
Valda Stewart v. Booker T. Washington Insurance, Booker T. Washington Broadcasting Companygreen2 sentences2013Washington Ins., 232 F.3d 844, 849 (11th Cir.2000), a Title VII discrimination case, for the proposition the time period does not begin to run until a plaintiff is told she is actually being terminated. [¶ 21] In Stewart , the court held a plaintiffs reason to suspect she might be terminated is not enough to start the period for filing a claim. 232 F.3d at 849 . 2013Washington Ins., 232 F.3d 844, 849 (11th Cir.2000), a Title VII discrimination case, for the proposition the time period does not begin to run until a plaintiff is told she is actually being terminated. [¶ 21] In Stewart , the court held a plaintiffs reason to suspect she might be terminated is not enough to start the period for filing a claim. 232 F.3d at 849 . | 1 | 1 |
Jefferys v. Tolingreen2 sentences2013In Jefferys v. Tolin, 90 N.C.App. 233 , 368 S.E.2d 201, 202 (1988), the court ruled that the period for filing a claim against an estate is tolled during a person’s minority. 2013In Jefferys v. Tolin, 90 N.C.App. 233 , 368 S.E.2d 201, 202 (1988), the court ruled that the period for filing a claim against an estate is tolled during a person’s minority. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in North Dakota. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Teegarden v. North Dakota Workmen's Compensation Bureau
green
2 sentences1991Teegarden v. North Dakota Workmen’s Compensation Bureau, 313 N.W.2d 716 (N.D.1981). 1989Teegarden v. North Dakota Workmen’s Compensation Bureau, 313 N.W.2d 716 (N.D.1981). | 2 | 1989–1991 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.