Minnesota Statutes
Minn. Stat. § 571.61 (2026)
[Repealed]
✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
MN-REVrevisor.mn.gov (official)
Justiaon Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
MS 1988 [Repealed, 1990 c 606 art 3 s 39]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 1
case, 1988–1988 · leading case: Maurice Hardie & Randy Johnson, Appellants/cross-Appellees v. Cotter & Co., Appellee/cross-Appellant, 849 F.2d 1097 (8th Cir. 1988).
Maurice Hardie & Randy Johnson, Appellants/cross-Appellees v. Cotter & Co., Appellee/cross-Appellant, 849 F.2d 1097 (8th Cir. 1988). “Statute of Limitations The district court dismissed Johnson’s garnishment retaliation claim as barred by the statute of limitations found at Minn.Stat.Ann. § 571.61. The statute provides as follows: (1) No employer may discharge any employee by reason of the fact that the…”
Minn. Stat. § 571.61(1): 1 case
Maurice Hardie & Randy Johnson, Appellants/cross-Appellees v. Cotter & Co., Appellee/cross-Appellant, 849 F.2d 1097 (8th Cir. 1988). “Statute of Limitations The district court dismissed Johnson’s garnishment retaliation claim as barred by the statute of limitations found at Minn.Stat.Ann. § 571.61. The statute provides as follows: (1) No employer may discharge any employee by reason of the fact that the…”
Minn. Stat. § 571.61(2): 1 case
Maurice Hardie & Randy Johnson, Appellants/cross-Appellees v. Cotter & Co., Appellee/cross-Appellant, 849 F.2d 1097 (8th Cir. 1988). “Statute of Limitations The district court dismissed Johnson’s garnishment retaliation claim as barred by the statute of limitations found at Minn.Stat.Ann. § 571.61. The statute provides as follows: (1) No employer may discharge any employee by reason of the fact that the…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.