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.
9 Minnesota opinions name it 2 courts 1990–2015 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Minnesota 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 |
|---|---|---|
Olesen v. Retzlaffgreen2 sentences2013Our conclusion that a constructive-fraud claim brought under the MUFTA is subject to the statute of limitations in section 541.05, subdivision 1(2), and an actual-fraud claim brought under the MUFTA is subject to the statute of limitations in section 541.05, subdivision 1(6), is supported by the supreme court’s decision in Olesen v. Retzlaff 184 Minn. 624, 627 , 238 N.W. 12, 14 (1931). 2013Our conclusion that a constructive-fraud claim brought under the MUFTA is subject to the statute of limitations in section 541.05, subdivision 1(2), and an actual-fraud claim brought under the MUFTA is subject to the statute of limitations in section 541.05, subdivision 1(6), is supported by the supreme court’s decision in Olesen v. Retzlaff 184 Minn. 624, 627 , 238 N.W. 12, 14 (1931). | 1 | 1 |
McDaniel v. United Hardware Distributing Co.green1 sentence2013But the receiver argues that the district court erred because the statute of limitations that applies to its MUFTA claims is that provided in section 541.05, subdivision 1(6), which applies to actions for “relief on the ground of fraud” and which also provides a six-year statute of limitations, but one that does not begin to run “until the discovery by the aggrieved party of the facts constituting the fraud.” The district court relied on McDaniel v. United Hardware Distributing Co., in which the Minnesota Supreme Court stated that section 541.05, subdivision 1(2), “applies to liabilities impos | 1 | 1 |
Fleeger v. Wyethgreen1 sentence2012See Fleeger, 771 N.W.2d at 526, 529 (concluding that the 6-year statute of limitations found in Minn.Stat. § 541.05 (2008), governed the plaintiffs action). | 1 | 1 |
O'Neill v. Illinois Farmers Insurance Co.red1 sentence2009Co., 381 N.W.2d 439, 440 (Minn.1986) (applying the six-year statute of limitations under Minn. Stat. § 541.05 , subd. 1, to a UIM claim), overruled on other grounds by Oanes, 617 *387 N.W.2d at 406. | 1 | 1 |
Vaubel Farms, Inc. v. Shelby Farmers Mutualgreen1 sentence2007Vaubel Farms, Inc. v. Shelby Farmers Mut., 679 N.W.2d 407, 411-12 (Minn.App.2004). | 1 | 1 |
Levin v. C.O.M.B. Co.green1 sentence2006Generally, “[a] cause of action accrues when the right to institute and maintain a lawsuit arises, when the action can be brought in a court of law without dismissal for failure to state a cause of action, and it has long been settled that a cause of action for breach of contract accrues on the breach of the terms of the contract.” Levin, 441 N.W.2d at 803 (citations omitted). | 1 | 1 |
Fagerlie v. City of Willmargreen1 sentence1990See Fagerlie v. City of Willmar, 435 N.W.2d 641, 644 (Minn.App.1989); Ford v. Emerson Electric Company, 430 N.W.2d 198, 200-201 (Minn.App.1988), pet. for rev. denied (Minn. Dec. 16, 1988). | 1 | 1 |
Ford v. Emerson Electric Co.green1 sentence1990See Fagerlie v. City of Willmar, 435 N.W.2d 641, 644 (Minn.App.1989); Ford v. Emerson Electric Company, 430 N.W.2d 198, 200-201 (Minn.App.1988), pet. for rev. denied (Minn. Dec. 16, 1988). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Minnesota. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Amica Mutual Insurance Co. v. Wartman
green
1 sentence2015The applicable statute of limitations for such claims is not the six-year period found in Minn.Stat. § 541.05, subd. 1, but rather the ten-year period for actions upon judgments under *208 Minn.Stat. § 541.04 (2014). 4 See Wart-man, 841 N.W.2d at 640-41 . | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Kaiser v. Memorial Blood Center of Minneapolis, Inc.
green
2 sentences1997Kaiser, 486 N.W.2d at 768 . 1997Kaiser, 486 N.W.2d at 768 . | 1 | 1997–1997 |
Young v. City of Duluth
green
1 sentence1996Relators argue the supreme court’s decision in Young v. City of Duluth, 386 N.W.2d 732 (Minn.1986), requires this court to disregard Johnson . | 1 | 1996–1996 |
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.