Solomon v. Interior Regional Housing Authority

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that, where there is no dispute over relevant facts, the date on which the statute of limitations begins to run \becomes a question of law to which we will apply our independent judgment\
• holding that, where there is no dispute over relevant facts, the date on which the statute of limitations begins to run “becomes a question of law to which we will apply our independent judgment”
• holding that, where there is no dispute over relevant facts, the date on which the statute of limitations begins to run “becomes a question of law to which we will apply our independent judgment”
• accepting the parties' contention that the former employee's claim accrued on September 9, 1999, and the statute of limitations would normally have run on September 9, 2001
• Noting our equitable tolling cases have \uniformly\ given plaintiffs second limitations period to file second claim, but declining to decide whether plaintiffs will always have second full limitations period for second claim
• explaining grounds for equitable tolling when a plaintiff pursues “multiple legal remedies”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).