46 Minnesota opinions name it 2 courts 1894–2026 4 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 |
|---|---|---|
Rhee v. Golden Home Builders, Inc.green2 sentences2015This court held that there was a genuine issue of material fact regarding whether the builder “is equitably estopped from asserting a statute-of-limitations defense.” Id. at 622 . 328 Barry argues that “[t]his case is on point with Rhee” because NPG assured it that the building would be repaired. 2014P. 8.03; see Rhee v. Golden Home Builders, Inc., 617 N.W.2d 618, 621 (Minn.App.2000) (reversing the district court when it allowed the defendant to orally amend its answer at a summary-judgment hearing to include a statute-of-limitations defense). | 5 | 6 |
Oreck v. Harvey Homes, Inc.green2 sentences2015Id. at 429, 431 . 2015The district court rejected the Moores’ waiver argument, relying on Oreck v. Harvey Homes, Inc., which states that “even if a statute of limitations defense is not properly pleaded in the answer, the trial court has broad discretionary powers to permit a party to amend its pleading.” 602 N.W.2d 424, 427 (Minn. App. 1999), review denied (Minn. Jan. 25, 2000). | 3 | 3 |
Donaldson v. Chase Securities Corp.green2 sentences2011Corp., 216 Minn. 269, 276-77 , 13 N.W.2d 1, 5 (1943). 2011Corp., 216 Minn. 269, 276-77 , 13 N.W.2d 1, 5 (1943). | 2 | 2 |
State v. Tupagreen2 sentences2010Tupa did not hold that the statute-of-limitations defense may never be waived, only that “[u]nder [Tupa’s] circumstances we do not believe that defendant intended to waive or relinquish a ‘known right.’ ” Id. at 497 , 260 N.W. at 879 . 2010Tupa did not hold that the statute-of-limitations defense may never be waived, only that “[u]nder [Tupa’s] circumstances we do not believe that defendant intended to waive or relinquish a ‘known right.’ ” Id. at 497 , 260 N.W. at 879 . | 1 | 2 |
Thiele v. Stichgreen2 sentences2007Id. at 582 . 2007Id. at 582 . | 1 | 2 |
Lake Superior Center Authority v. Hammel, Green & Abrahamson, Inc.green1 sentence2026Auth. v. Hammel, Green & Abrahamson, Inc., 715 N.W.2d 458, 473 (Minn. App. 2006) (“When a party allegedly responsible for remedying a defect in real property makes assurances or representations that the defect will be repaired, that party may be estopped from asserting a statute-of-limitations defense if the injured party reasonably and detrimentally relied on the assurances or representations.” (quotation omitted)), rev. denied (Minn. Aug. 23, 2006). | 1 | 1 |
Alan Schmidt v. John Skolasgreen1 sentence2026See, e.g., Schmidt v. Skolas, 770 F.3d 241, 248 (3d Cir. 2014) (explaining that because a complaint “need not anticipate or overcome” an affirmative defense, “a complaint does not fail to state a claim simply because it omits facts that would defeat a statute of limitations defense”). | 1 | 1 |
Jensen v. Browngreen1 sentence2025Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 1357 (4th ed. 2025) (explaining that dismissal based on an affirmative defense is appropriate only when the “affirmative defense appears on the face of the complaint,” such that the complaint “is essentially self-defeating”). 5 And other notice-pleading states have also explained that a motion to dismiss based on an 5 See also Luna Vanegas v. Signet Builders, Inc., 46 F.4th 636, 640 (7th Cir. 2022) (“Rarely will the face of the complaint so clearly prove the opponent’s affirmative defense that immediate dismissal, prior to the filing of an answer, will | 1 | 1 |
Joyce v. Armstrong Teasdale, LLPgreen1 sentence2025Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 1357 (4th ed. 2025) (explaining that dismissal based on an affirmative defense is appropriate only when the “affirmative defense appears on the face of the complaint,” such that the complaint “is essentially self-defeating”). 5 And other notice-pleading states have also explained that a motion to dismiss based on an 5 See also Luna Vanegas v. Signet Builders, Inc., 46 F.4th 636, 640 (7th Cir. 2022) (“Rarely will the face of the complaint so clearly prove the opponent’s affirmative defense that immediate dismissal, prior to the filing of an answer, will | 1 | 1 |
G.G. v. Salesforce.com, Inc.green1 sentence2025For example, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit has explained that plaintiffs “ordinarily need not anticipate and attempt to plead around affirmative defenses.” G.G. v. Salesforce.com, Inc., 76 F.4th 544, 566 (7th Cir. 2023) (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted); see also Wright & Miller, supra, § 1357 (“[A] plaintiff is not required to plead the negation of an affirmative defense in order to survive a motion to dismiss.”). | 1 | 1 |
Jose Ageo Luna Vanegas v. Signet Builders, Inc.green1 sentence2025Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 1357 (4th ed. 2025) (explaining that dismissal based on an affirmative defense is appropriate only when the “affirmative defense appears on the face of the complaint,” such that the complaint “is essentially self-defeating”). 5 And other notice-pleading states have also explained that a motion to dismiss based on an 5 See also Luna Vanegas v. Signet Builders, Inc., 46 F.4th 636, 640 (7th Cir. 2022) (“Rarely will the face of the complaint so clearly prove the opponent’s affirmative defense that immediate dismissal, prior to the filing of an answer, will | 1 | 1 |
State v. Hohenwaldgreen1 sentence2016The plain language of Minn. Stat. § 628.26 (e) focuses on “the offense [that] was reported to law enforcement authorities.” (Emphasis added.) “The definite article ‘the’ is a word of limitation that indicates a reference to a specific object.” State v. Hohenwald, 815 N.W.2d 823, 830 (Minn. 2012). | 1 | 1 |
New York Central & Hudson River Railroad v. Kinneygreen2 sentences2015Co. v. Kinney, 260 U.S. 340, 346 , 43 S. Ct. 122, 123 (1922)). 2015Co. v. Kinney, 260 U.S. 340, 346 , 43 S. Ct. 122, 123 (1922)). | 1 | 1 |
Daly v. McFarlandgreen1 sentence2015Id. at 207-08 (“Under the Civil Procedure Rules, a defendant forfeits a statute of limitations defense not asserted in its answer or an amendment thereto.” (citation omitted) (citing Fed. | 1 | 1 |
Carlton v. Stategreen1 sentence2015In Carlton v. State, the Minnesota Supreme Court addressed whether the time limitations found in Minn. Stat. § 590.01 operate as a jurisdictional bar or whether the state’s failure to raise the timeliness argument constituted a waiver of the statute-of-limitations defense. 816 N.W.2d 590, 600-01 (Minn. 2012). | 1 | 1 |
Nelson v. Glenwood Hills Hospitals, Inc.green2 sentences2015The supreme court rejected the hospital’s argument that allowing amendment of the summons would deprive it of a statute-of-limitations defense, stating that “when a defendant has had notice from the beginning that the plaintiff sets up and is trying to enforce a claim against it because of specified conduct, the reasons for the statute of limitations do not exist, and we are of opinion that a liberal rule should be applied.” Id. at 79, 62 N.W.2d at 515 (quoting New York Cent. & H.R.R. 2015The supreme court rejected the hospital’s argument that allowing amendment of the summons would deprive it of a statute-of-limitations defense, stating that “when a defendant has had notice from the beginning that the plaintiff sets up and is trying to enforce a claim against it because of specified conduct, the reasons for the statute of limitations do not exist, and we are of opinion that a liberal rule should be applied.” Id. at 79, 62 N.W.2d at 515 (quoting New York Cent. & H.R.R. | 1 | 1 |
O'Reilly v. Allstate Insurance Co.green1 sentence2014Co., 474 N.W.2d 221, 223 (Minn.App.1991) (concluding that, while the district court could have treated a statute-of-limitations defense as waived, its consideration of the issue on summary judgment was not error because the district court has discretion to allow amended pleadings). | 1 | 1 |
Bradley v. First Nat. Bank of Walker, N.A.green1 sentence2014See Bradley v. First Nat’l Bank of Walker, N.A., 711 N.W.2d 121, 128 (Minn.App.2006) (concluding that, because the other party had a “full opportunity” to address the issue, it was not an abuse of discretion for the district court to consider statute-of-limitations defense at summary-judgment phase); O’Reilly v. Allstate Ins. | 1 | 1 |
Bonnie M. Wojtas and Richard J. Wojtas v. Capital Guardian Trust Company Now Known as Capital Bank & Trust Companygreen1 sentence2011See Wojtas v. Capital Guardian Trust Co., 477 F.3d 924, 927-28 (7th Cir.2007) (affirming denial of voluntary dismissal because depriving defendant of benefit of a Wisconsin statute of limitations would constitute prejudice); Metro. | 1 | 1 |
Albachten v. Bradleygreen2 sentences2010Albachten v. Bradley, 212 Minn. 359, 364-65 , 3 N.W.2d 783, 786 (1942). 2010Albachten v. Bradley, 212 Minn. 359, 364-65 , 3 N.W.2d 783, 786 (1942). | 1 | 1 |
| City of Willmar v. Short-Elliott-Hendrickson, Inc.green | 1 | 1 |
| Minnesota Landmarks v. M.A. Mortenson Co.green | 1 | 1 |
| Hydra-Mac, Inc. v. Onan Corp.green | 1 | 1 |
| Atkins v. Department of Revenuegreen | 1 | 1 |
| Ericksen v. Winnebago Industries, Inc.green | 1 | 1 |
| State Farm Insurance Companies v. Seefeldgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Osland v. Oslandgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Hammer v. Hammergreen | 1 | 1 |
| Callahan v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| Spitzack v. Schumachergreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Grosegreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Inthavonggreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Johnsongreen | 1 | 1 |
| Tackleson v. Abbott-Northwestern Hospital, Inc.green | 1 | 1 |
| Harry T. Von Eichelberger and Haig Mihram Terzian v. United Statesgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Christenson v. Argonaut Insurance Companiesgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Christy v. Salitermangreen | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Wood v. Milyardgreen2 sentences2016In Wood, the State was aware of the statute of limitations defense available to it and the arguments that could be made in support of that defense. ___ U.S. at ___, 132 S. Ct. at 1830-31 . 2016The Supreme Court reversed and remanded, concluding that the State deliberately waived the statute of limitations defense.3 Id. at ___, 132 S. Ct. at 1832-34 . | 1 | 3 |
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Day v. McDonough
green
2 sentences2015Id. at 207-08, 126 S.Ct. 1675 (“Under the Civil Procedure Rules, a defendant forfeits a statute of limitations defense not asserted in its answer or an amendment thereto.” (citation omitted) (citing Fed. 2010Second, the United States Supreme Court has held that a statute-of-limitations defense “is not jurisdictional.” Day v. McDonough, 547 U.S. 198, 205 , 126 S.Ct. 1675 , 164 L.Ed.2d 376 (2006). | 2 | 2010–2015 |
Reed v. State
green
1 sentence2025The supreme court has concluded that “waiving a statute-of-limitations claim to a lesser offense may be a valid trial strategy designed to avoid the risk of an unwarranted conviction.” Reed, 793 N.W.2d at 734 . | 1 | 2025–2025 |
MacRae v. Group Health Plan, Inc.
green
2 sentences2025In MacRae, we reversed a grant of summary judgment and dismissal of plaintiff’s complaint based on a statute of limitations defense. 753 N.W.2d at 713–14. 2025We began by noting that the statute of limitations is an affirmative defense and explained that “the party asserting [an affirmative] defense has the burden of establishing each of [its] elements.” Id. at 716 . | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Majestic Inc. v. Berry
green
1 sentence2019"As a practical matter, entry of judgment based on a plea of confession does not require a hearing and therefore the debtor does not have the opportunity to raise the statute of limitations defense." Majestic Inc. v. Berry , 593 N.W.2d 251 , 256 (Minn. App. 1999), review denied (Minn. Aug. 18, 1999). | 1 | 2019–2019 |
Larson v. State
green
2 sentences2015Larson v. State, 451 N.W.2d 213 (Minn. App. 1990), is also instructive. 2015Id. at 216 . | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Gregory Monson v. Jeff Suck
green
1 sentence2015The district court’s approach allowed the Moores time to conduct discovery regarding the statute-of-limitations defense and to prepare for summary-judgment proceedings. 8 This court recently opined that a district court does not abuse its discretion by allowing an amendment when the opposing party will have time to conduct discovery regarding the amendment and “does not identify any way in which he was prejudiced.” Monson v. Suck, 855 N.W.2d 323 , 326 n.2 (Minn. App. 2014), review denied (Minn. Dec. 30, 2014). | 1 | 2015–2015 |
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 |
Spaziano v. Florida
red
2 sentences2010As the U.S. Supreme Court recognized in Spaziano, 468 U.S. at 456 , 104 S.Ct. 3154 , waiving a statute-of-limitations claim to a lesser offense may be a valid trial strategy designed to avoid the risk of an unwarranted conviction when a jury is presented with the all-or-nothing choice between finding a defendant guilty of a single charge of murder and finding the defendant not guilty of any criminal offense. 2010As the U.S. Supreme Court recognized in Spaziano, 468 U.S. at 456 , 104 S.Ct. 3154 , waiving a statute-of-limitations claim to a lesser offense may be a valid trial strategy designed to avoid the risk of an unwarranted conviction when a jury is presented with the all-or-nothing choice between finding a defendant guilty of a single charge of murder and finding the defendant not guilty of any criminal offense. | 1 | 2010–2010 |
State v. Knaffla
green
2 sentences2010Because Reed offers no reason for his failure to raise the issue on direct appeal, the statute-of-limitations claim would ordinarily be barred by Knaffla, 309 Minn. at 252 , 243 N.W.2d at 741 . 2010Because Reed offers no reason for his failure to raise the issue on direct appeal, the statute-of-limitations claim would ordinarily be barred by Knaffla, 309 Minn. at 252 , 243 N.W.2d at 741 . | 1 | 2010–2010 |
| Toombs v. Daniels green | 1 | 2004–2004 |
| Arbitration Demand of 200 Levee Drive Associates, Ltd. v. Bor-Son Building Corp. green | 1 | 2003–2003 |
| Glassman v. Miller green | 1 | 1990–1990 |
| United States v. Franklin green | 1 | 1989–1989 |
| State v. Lawrence green | 1 | 1989–1989 |
| United States v. Fleetwood green | 1 | 1989–1989 |
| Brenner v. Nordby green | 1 | 1989–1989 |
| Schmucking v. Mayo green | 1 | 1985–1985 |
| Kremer v. Lewis neutral | 1 | 1953–1953 |
| Vadnais v. State green | 1 | 1953–1953 |
| Greenfield v. Hill City Land, Loan & Lumber Co. neutral | 1 | 1953–1953 |
| Phillips Petroleum Co. v. Selnes neutral | 1 | 1950–1950 |
| County of Redwood v. Winona & St. Peter Land Co. green | 1 | 1894–1894 |
| Mower County v. Crane neutral | 1 | 1894–1894 |
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.