Except where the Uniform Commercial Code, this section, section 541.05, 541.073, 541.076, or 604.205 otherwise prescribes, the following actions shall be commenced within two years:
(1) for libel, slander, assault, battery, false imprisonment, or other tort resulting in personal injury, and all actions against veterinarians as defined in chapter 156, for malpractice, error, mistake, or failure to cure, whether based on contract or tort; provided a counterclaim may be pleaded as a defense to any action for services brought by a veterinarian after the limitations period if it was the property of the party pleading it at the time it became barred and was not barred at the time the claim sued on originated, but no judgment thereof except for costs can be rendered in favor of the party so pleading it;
(2) upon a statute for a penalty or forfeiture, except as provided in sections 541.074 and 541.075;
(3) for damages caused by a dam, other than a dam used for commercial purposes; but as against one holding under the preemption or homestead laws, the limitations shall not begin to run until a patent has been issued for the land so damaged;
(4) against a master for breach of an indenture of apprenticeship; the limitation runs from the expiration of the term of service;
(5) for the recovery of wages or overtime or damages, fees, or penalties accruing under any federal or state law respecting the payment of wages or overtime or damages, fees, or penalties except, that if the employer fails to submit payroll records by a specified date upon request of the Department of Labor and Industry or if the nonpayment is willful and not the result of mistake or inadvertence, the limitation is three years. (The term "wages" means all remuneration for services or employment, including commissions and bonuses and the cash value of all remuneration in any medium other than cash, where the relationship of master and servant exists and the term "damages" means single, double, or treble damages, accorded by any statutory cause of action whatsoever and whether or not the relationship of master and servant exists);
(6) for damages caused by the establishment of a street or highway grade or a change in the originally established grade;
(7) against the person who applies the pesticide for injury or damage to property resulting from the application, but not the manufacture or sale, of a pesticide.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
267
cases (
18 in the last 5 years), 1947–2026 · leading case:
Sipe v. STS Mfg., Inc., 834 N.W.2d 683 (Minn. 2013).
Sipe v. STS Mfg., Inc., 834 N.W.2d 683 (Minn. 2013).
· cites it 46× “Sipe contends that the court of appeals erred in concluding that the two-year limitations period set forth in Minn. Stat. § 541.07 (1) applies to his wrongful discharge claim under Minn.”
Park Nicollet Clinic v. Hamann, 808 N.W.2d 828 (Minn. 2011).
· cites it 12× “That determination is unnecessary in this case because the parties agree that the statute of limitations set forth in Minn.Stat. § 541.07(5) (2010) governs each of Ham-ann’s claims.”
Levin v. C.O.M.B. Co., 441 N.W.2d 801 (Minn. 1989).
· cites it 20× “moved for summary judgment on alternative grounds: Levin’s claim was barred by the two-year limitation set by Minn.Stat. § 541.07(5) (1988), and the parties rescinded the commission element of Levin’s employment contract in 1982.”
Fabio v. Bellomo, 504 N.W.2d 758 (Minn. 1993).
· cites it 8× “Minn.Stat. § 541.07(1) (1992). These rulings were affirmed by the court of appeals 489 N.”
Murphy v. Allina Health Sys., 668 N.W.2d 17 (Minn. Ct. App. 2003).
· cites it 30× “The district court determined that the two-year limitations provision of Minn.Stat. § 541.07 (1998) in effect at the time of Mary Murphy’s death applied, but because it was retroactively amended in 1999 — before respondent brought his suit — its four-year limitations provision…”
Manteuffel v. City of North St. Paul, 570 N.W.2d 807 (Minn. Ct. App. 1997).
· cites it 49× “Wage claims — Minn. Stat. § 541.07 (5) Manteuffel’s complaint seeks “compensatory damages” in a sum to be determined at trial, but does not specifically mention lost wages.”
D.M.S. v. Barber, 645 N.W.2d 383 (Minn. 2002).
· cites it 16× “The district court granted PATH's motion for summary judgment on the grounds that D.M.S.'s negligence-based claims were barred by the six-year statute of limitations set forth in Minn.”
Portlance v. Golden Valley State Bank, 405 N.W.2d 240 (Minn. 1987).
· cites it 19× “Golden Valley State Bank appeals from the order denying its motion for summary judgment and certifying the following question as important and doubtful: Does the two-year limitations period of Minn.Stat. 541.07(5) or the six-year limitations period of Minn.”
Peterson v. Parsons, 73 F. Supp. 840 (D. Minnesota 1947).
· cites it 66× “Peterson and by the defendant Federal Cartridge Corporation have raised two general issues in each case: (1) Is Section 541.07(5) of Minnesota Statutes of 1945, M.”
Rice v. Target Stores, a Div. of Dayton Hudson Corp., 677 F. Supp. 608 (D. Minnesota 1988).
· cites it 48× “Minn.Stat. § 541.07 provides: Except where the uniform commercial code or this section otherwise prescribes, the following action shall be commenced within two years: (1) For libel, slander, assault, battery, false imprisonment, or other tort, resulting in personal injury.”
Yvette Ford v. Minneapolis Pub. Schs., 857 N.W.2d 725 (Minn. Ct. App. 2014).
· cites it 36× “Thus, the only question is whether some provision of Minn.Stat. § 541.07 applies. [[Image here]] [W]e conclude that section 541.”
Ernst v. Hinchliff, 129 F. Supp. 3d 695 (D. Minnesota 2015).
· cites it 9× “See Minn.Stat. § 541.07(1) (actions for libel and slander “shall be commenced within two years”); Songa v.”
— Minn. Stat. § 541.07(1) — 114 cases
Sipe v. STS Mfg., Inc., 834 N.W.2d 683 (Minn. 2013).
“Sipe contends that the court of appeals erred in concluding that the two-year limitations period set forth in Minn. Stat. § 541.07 (1) applies to his wrongful discharge claim under Minn.”
Fabio v. Bellomo, 504 N.W.2d 758 (Minn. 1993).
“Minn.Stat. § 541.07(1) (1992). These rulings were affirmed by the court of appeals 489 N.”
D.M.S. v. Barber, 645 N.W.2d 383 (Minn. 2002).
“The district court granted PATH's motion for summary judgment on the grounds that D.M.S.'s negligence-based claims were barred by the six-year statute of limitations set forth in Minn.”
Manteuffel v. City of North St. Paul, 570 N.W.2d 807 (Minn. Ct. App. 1997).
“Wage claims — Minn. Stat. § 541.07 (5) Manteuffel’s complaint seeks “compensatory damages” in a sum to be determined at trial, but does not specifically mention lost wages.”
— Minn. Stat. § 541.07(1)(1988) — 1 case
— Minn. Stat. § 541.07(1996) — 1 case
— Minn. Stat. § 541.07(2) — 11 cases
Sipe v. STS Mfg., Inc., 834 N.W.2d 683 (Minn. 2013).
“Sipe contends that the court of appeals erred in concluding that the two-year limitations period set forth in Minn. Stat. § 541.07 (1) applies to his wrongful discharge claim under Minn.”
— Minn. Stat. § 541.07(5) — 57 cases
Park Nicollet Clinic v. Hamann, 808 N.W.2d 828 (Minn. 2011).
“That determination is unnecessary in this case because the parties agree that the statute of limitations set forth in Minn.Stat. § 541.07(5) (2010) governs each of Ham-ann’s claims.”
Levin v. C.O.M.B. Co., 441 N.W.2d 801 (Minn. 1989).
“moved for summary judgment on alternative grounds: Levin’s claim was barred by the two-year limitation set by Minn.Stat. § 541.07(5) (1988), and the parties rescinded the commission element of Levin’s employment contract in 1982.”
Portlance v. Golden Valley State Bank, 405 N.W.2d 240 (Minn. 1987).
“Golden Valley State Bank appeals from the order denying its motion for summary judgment and certifying the following question as important and doubtful: Does the two-year limitations period of Minn.Stat. 541.07(5) or the six-year limitations period of Minn.”
Peterson v. Parsons, 73 F. Supp. 840 (D. Minnesota 1947).
“Peterson and by the defendant Federal Cartridge Corporation have raised two general issues in each case: (1) Is Section 541.07(5) of Minnesota Statutes of 1945, M.”
— Minn. Stat. § 541.07(5)(1990) — 2 cases
— Minn. Stat. § 541.07(6) — 1 case
— Minn. Stat. § 541.07(7) — 1 case
— Minn. Stat. § 541.07(8) — 3 cases
— Minn. Stat. § 541.07(I) — 1 case
— Minn. Stat. § 541.07(l) — 3 cases
Ernst v. Hinchliff, 129 F. Supp. 3d 695 (D. Minnesota 2015).
“See Minn.Stat. § 541.07(1) (actions for libel and slander “shall be commenced within two years”); Songa v.”
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.