When a cause of action accrues against a person who is out of the state and while out of the state is not subject to process under the laws of this state or after diligent search the person cannot be found for the purpose of personal service when personal service is required, an action may be commenced within the times herein limited after the person's return to the state; and if, after a cause of action accrues, the person departs from and resides out of the state and while out of the state is not subject to process under the laws of this state or after diligent search the person cannot be found for the purpose of personal service when personal service is required, the time of the person's absence is not part of the time limited for the commencement of the action.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
8
cases, 1971–2006 · leading case:
Mercer v. Andersen, 715 N.W.2d 114 (Minn. Ct. App. 2006).
Mercer v. Andersen, 715 N.W.2d 114 (Minn. Ct. App. 2006).
· cites it 6× “Did the district court err by concluding that a nonresident defendant was subject to service of process in Minnesota and that the plaintiff did not conduct a diligent search under Minn.Stat. § 541.13 (2004) that would toll the statute of limitations? III.”
Duresky v. Hanson, 329 N.W.2d 44 (Minn. 1983).
· cites it 11× “55 gives them the right to serve the commissioner as respondent’s agent, but only after it is established that respondent has been continuously absent from the state for a period of time in excess of 6 months, the statute operates to toll the general limitation statute for that…”
Eliseuson v. Frayseth, 187 N.W.2d 685 (Minn. 1971).
· cites it 7× “05) was tolled in this case by reason of the following part of § 541.18: “* * * [I] f, after a cause of action accrues, [defendant] departs from and resides out of the state, the time of his absence is not part of the time limited for the commencement of the action.”
Johnson v. Husebye, 469 N.W.2d 742 (Minn. Ct. App. 1991).
· cites it 8× “Can a statutory limitation period be tolled under Minn.Stat. § 541.13 (1988) when the defendant was subject to service of process and the plaintiff made no attempt to find the defendant during the statutory period? ANALYSIS When reviewing a grant of summary judgment, this court…”
Atkinson v. McLaughlin, 462 F. Supp. 2d 1038 (D.N.D. 2006).
“See Minn. Stat. § 541.13 (2006) (providing that the statute of limitations is tolled when a person is out of the state and "is not subject to process under the laws of this state or after diligent search the person cannot be found for the purpose of personal service when…”
Long v. Moore, 204 N.W.2d 641 (Minn. 1973).
· cites it 2× “2 Plaintiffs urge us to adopt the view that if § 541.13, the tolling statute, is not to be applied so as to toll the running of the statute of limitations, the change should be made by the legislature and not by this court.”
Botzet v. Spencer, 362 F. Supp. 177 (D. Minnesota 1973).
· cites it 2× “Section 541.13 of the Minnesota statutes provides that the absence of the defendant from the state will, in some instances, toll the running of the statute of limitations until he returns to the jurisdiction so that process may be then served upon him.”
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.