6 Minnesota opinions name it 2 courts 2006–2016 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 |
|---|---|---|
Siewert v. Northern States Power Co.green2 sentences2015The party who claims that the exception applies bears the burden of proof.” Siewert, 793 N.W.2d at 288 (citation omitted); see also Monson v. Suck, 855 N.W.2d 323, 327 (Minn.App.2014) (stating that “a person who owns or possesses real property may not assert a statute-of-repose defense in response to a claim described in subdivision 1(d)” and that “[a] plaintiff who claims that the exception in subdivision 1(d) applies bears the burden of establishing that at least a question of material fact exists with respect to the defendant’s negligence” (emphasis omitted) (quotation omitted)), review den 2014Minn. Stat. § 541.051 , subd. 1(a); Siewert v. Northern States Power Co., 793 N.W.2d 272, 286 (Minn.2011). | 2 | 2 |
McGowan v. Our Savior's Lutheran Churchgreen1 sentence2016The district court granted the city’s motion on the statute- of-repose defense, limiting McCullough’s claims to those arising out of negligent maintenance. 3 Church, 527 N.W.2d 830, 832 (Minn. 1995). | 1 | 1 |
Gregory Monson v. Jeff Suckgreen1 sentence2015The party who claims that the exception applies bears the burden of proof.” Siewert, 793 N.W.2d at 288 (citation omitted); see also Monson v. Suck, 855 N.W.2d 323, 327 (Minn.App.2014) (stating that “a person who owns or possesses real property may not assert a statute-of-repose defense in response to a claim described in subdivision 1(d)” and that “[a] plaintiff who claims that the exception in subdivision 1(d) applies bears the burden of establishing that at least a question of material fact exists with respect to the defendant’s negligence” (emphasis omitted) (quotation omitted)), review den | 1 | 1 |
Penn Anthracite Mining Co. v. Clarkson Securities Co.green1 sentence2010See Penn Anthracite, 205 Minn, at 520, 287 N.W. at 17 . | 1 | 1 |
Hodder v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co.green2 sentences2006See Hodder v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 426 N.W.2d 826 , 830 n. 3 (Minn.1988) (discussing the operation of a statute of repose to bar recovery even before the cause of action accrues). [A] statute [of repose] is intended to terminate the possibility of liability after a defined period of time, regardless of the potential plaintiffs lack of knowledge of his or her cause of action. 2006See Hodder v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 426 N.W.2d 826 , 830 n. 3 (Minn.1988) (discussing the operation of a statute of repose to bar recovery even before the cause of action accrues). [A] statute [of repose] is intended to terminate the possibility of liability after a defined period of time, regardless of the potential plaintiff's lack of knowledge of his or her cause of action. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Minnesota. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Chase Securities Corp. v. Donaldson
green
2 sentences2011Both of these interests, however, are equally applicable to a statute of limitations defense, and indeed, the policy of avoiding stale claims through a statute of limitations was identified in Donaldson, see 325 U.S. at 314 , 65 S.Ct. 1137 , years before Minn.Stat. § 541.051 was enacted. 2011Both of these interests, however, are equally applicable to a statute of limitations defense, and indeed, the policy of avoiding stale claims through a statute of limitations was identified in Donaldson, see 325 U.S. at 314 , 65 S.Ct. 1137 , years before Minn.Stat. § 541.051 was enacted. | 1 | 2011–2011 |
Wesley Theological Seminary of the United Methodist Church v. United States Gypsum Company
green
1 sentence2011Id. at 121 . | 1 | 2011–2011 |
Weston v. McWilliams & Associates, Inc.
green
2 sentences2011Jacobs relies on Weston v. McWilliams & Assoc., 716 N.W.2d 634 (Minn.2006), to argue that it has a protectable property right in a statute of repose defense. 2011Nonetheless, the court relies on Weston v. McWilliams & Associates, Inc., 716 N.W.2d 634 (2006), in concluding that Jacobs has a protectable property right in a statute of repose defense. 1 In Weston , we noted that, unlike a statute of limitations, a statute of repose is a substantive limit on a cause of action. | 1 | 2011–2011 |
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.