Minnesota Statutes
Minn. Stat. § 541.15 (2026)
Periods Of Disability Not Counted
✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
MN-REVrevisor.mn.gov (official)
Justiaon Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
(a) Except as provided in paragraph (b), any of the following grounds of disability, existing at the time when a cause of action accrued or arising anytime during the period of limitation, shall suspend the running of the period of limitation until the same is removed; provided that such period, except in the case of infancy, shall not be extended for more than five years, nor in any case for more than one year after the disability ceases:
(1) that the plaintiff is within the age of 18 years;
(2) the plaintiff's insanity;
(3) is an alien and the subject or citizen of a country at war with the United States;
(4) when the beginning of the action is stayed by injunction or by statutory prohibition.
If two or more disabilities shall coexist, the suspension shall continue until all are removed.
(b) In actions alleging malpractice, error, mistake, or failure to cure, whether based on contract or tort, against a health care provider, the ground of disability specified in paragraph (a), clause (1), suspends the period of limitation until the disability is removed. The suspension may not be extended for more than seven years, or for more than one year after the disability ceases.
For purposes of this paragraph, health care provider means a physician, surgeon, dentist, or other health care professional or hospital, including all persons or entities providing health care as defined in section 145.61, subdivisions 2 and 4, or a certified health care professional employed by or providing services as an independent contractor in a hospital.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 47
cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1952–2026 · leading case: D.M.S. v. Barber, 645 N.W.2d 383 (Minn. 2002).
D.M.S. v. Barber, 645 N.W.2d 383 (Minn. 2002). “The error of the majority is that it basically ignores subpart (d), the legislative declaration that Minn.Stat. § 541.15 (2000), the minority tolling statute, is unaffected by the delayed discovery statute.”
Bertram v. Poole, 597 N.W.2d 309 (Minn. Ct. App. 1999). “Rather, the dissent's reading would require any sexual abuse claim effected by infancy, under Minn.Stat. § 541.15, subd. (a)(1), to be brought before the victim's nineteenth birthday or it would be barred by the statute of limitations.”
Ostrander Ex Rel. Ostrander v. Cone Mills, Inc., 445 N.W.2d 240 (Minn. 1989). “I A certification order from the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota, Third Division presents us with the following question: May parents delay a suit for medical expenses, services, loss of society, lost wages, and other out-of-pocket expenses resulting…”
J.J. v. Luckow, 578 N.W.2d 17 (Minn. Ct. App. 1998). “(citing Minn. Stat. § 541.15 (a)(1)). Troublesome as this observation may be, we are unpersuaded that it represents a reinterpretation of section 541.”
Whitener Ex Rel. Miller v. Dahl, 625 N.W.2d 827 (Minn. 2001). “Appellants argued that their suit was timely because each appellant is younger than age 18 and under the minority-tolling statute, Minn. Stat. § 541.15 (a)(1) (2000), the limitations provision for bringing an action under the Civil Damages Act is suspended until one year after a…”
W.J.L. v. Bugge, 573 N.W.2d 677 (Minn. 1998). “First, Minn.Stat. § 541.15 (1996) already provides, as a matter of general law applying to all statutes of limitations, that a disability such as youth or mental disability suspends the running of the period of limitation until the disability is removed.”
Salin v. Kloempken, 322 N.W.2d 736 (Minn. 1982). “In addition, Minn.Stat. § 541.15(1) (1980) tolls the statute of limitations during minority; application of section 541.”
Sitek v. Striker, 764 N.W.2d 585 (Minn. Ct. App. 2009). “” Minn.Stat. § 541.15(a), (a)(4) (2008). Under federal law, a bankruptcy stay continues “until such property is no longer property of the estate.”
Hooper v. State, 838 N.W.2d 775 (Minn. 2013). “1(6) (2012) (providing that the statute of limitations for a fraud claim does not begin to run until the plaintiff discovers “the facts constituting the fraud”); Minn.”
In Re the Est. of Eckley, 780 N.W.2d 407 (Minn. Ct. App. 2010). “Appellant contends that decedent was mentally disabled within the meaning of Minn.Stat. § 541.15 (2008), which deals with statutes of limitations.”
Lickteig v. Kolar, 782 N.W.2d 810 (Minn. 2010). “(d) This section does not affect the suspension of the statute of limitations during a period of disability under section 541.15. *813 Subdivision 3 provides, “[t]his section applies to an action for damages commenced against a person who caused the plaintiffs personal injury…”
Hardin v. Straub, 490 U.S. 536 (1989). “1988); Minn. Stat. §541.15 (1988); Mo. Rev. Stat.”
— Minn. Stat. § 541.15(1) — 3 cases
Salin v. Kloempken, 322 N.W.2d 736 (Minn. 1982). “In addition, Minn.Stat. § 541.15(1) (1980) tolls the statute of limitations during minority; application of section 541.”
Reliance Ins. Co. v. Arneson, 322 N.W.2d 604 (Minn. 1982).
Halverson v. Rolvaag, 143 N.W.2d 239 (Minn. 1966).
— Minn. Stat. § 541.15(2) — 3 cases
Harrington v. Cnty. of Ramsey, 279 N.W.2d 791 (Minn. 1979).
Eustice Ex Rel. Eustice v. Jewison, 413 N.W.2d 114 (Minn. 1987).
Larson v. State, 451 N.W.2d 213 (Minn. Ct. App. 1990).
— Minn. Stat. § 541.15(a) — 9 cases
J.J. v. Luckow, 578 N.W.2d 17 (Minn. Ct. App. 1998). “(citing Minn. Stat. § 541.15 (a)(1)). Troublesome as this observation may be, we are unpersuaded that it represents a reinterpretation of section 541.”
Bertram v. Poole, 597 N.W.2d 309 (Minn. Ct. App. 1999). “Rather, the dissent's reading would require any sexual abuse claim effected by infancy, under Minn.Stat. § 541.15, subd. (a)(1), to be brought before the victim's nineteenth birthday or it would be barred by the statute of limitations.”
Whitener Ex Rel. Miller v. Dahl, 625 N.W.2d 827 (Minn. 2001). “Appellants argued that their suit was timely because each appellant is younger than age 18 and under the minority-tolling statute, Minn. Stat. § 541.15 (a)(1) (2000), the limitations provision for bringing an action under the Civil Damages Act is suspended until one year after a…”
D.M.S. v. Barber, 645 N.W.2d 383 (Minn. 2002). “The error of the majority is that it basically ignores subpart (d), the legislative declaration that Minn.Stat. § 541.15 (2000), the minority tolling statute, is unaffected by the delayed discovery statute.”
Sitek v. Striker, 764 N.W.2d 585 (Minn. Ct. App. 2009). “” Minn.Stat. § 541.15(a), (a)(4) (2008). Under federal law, a bankruptcy stay continues “until such property is no longer property of the estate.”
— Minn. Stat. § 541.15(a)(1) — 10 cases
J.J. v. Luckow, 578 N.W.2d 17 (Minn. Ct. App. 1998). “(citing Minn. Stat. § 541.15 (a)(1)). Troublesome as this observation may be, we are unpersuaded that it represents a reinterpretation of section 541.”
D.M.S. v. Barber, 645 N.W.2d 383 (Minn. 2002). “The error of the majority is that it basically ignores subpart (d), the legislative declaration that Minn.Stat. § 541.15 (2000), the minority tolling statute, is unaffected by the delayed discovery statute.”
W.J.L. v. Bugge, 573 N.W.2d 677 (Minn. 1998). “First, Minn.Stat. § 541.15 (1996) already provides, as a matter of general law applying to all statutes of limitations, that a disability such as youth or mental disability suspends the running of the period of limitation until the disability is removed.”
Bertram v. Poole, 597 N.W.2d 309 (Minn. Ct. App. 1999). “Rather, the dissent's reading would require any sexual abuse claim effected by infancy, under Minn.Stat. § 541.15, subd. (a)(1), to be brought before the victim's nineteenth birthday or it would be barred by the statute of limitations.”
K.E. v. Hoffman, 452 N.W.2d 509 (Minn. Ct. App. 1990).
— Minn. Stat. § 541.15(a)(2) — 4 cases
Hooper v. State, 838 N.W.2d 775 (Minn. 2013). “1(6) (2012) (providing that the statute of limitations for a fraud claim does not begin to run until the plaintiff discovers “the facts constituting the fraud”); Minn.”
In Re the Est. of Eckley, 780 N.W.2d 407 (Minn. Ct. App. 2010). “Appellant contends that decedent was mentally disabled within the meaning of Minn.Stat. § 541.15 (2008), which deals with statutes of limitations.”
L.A.B. v. P.N., 533 N.W.2d 413 (Minn. Ct. App. 1995).
Lab v. Pn, 533 N.W.2d 413 (Minn. Ct. App. 1995).
— Minn. Stat. § 541.15(a)(3) — 1 case
Ostrander Ex Rel. Ostrander v. Cone Mills, Inc., 445 N.W.2d 240 (Minn. 1989). “I A certification order from the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota, Third Division presents us with the following question: May parents delay a suit for medical expenses, services, loss of society, lost wages, and other out-of-pocket expenses resulting…”
— Minn. Stat. § 541.15(a)(4) — 1 case
Rosso v. Hallmark Homes of Minneapolis, Inc., 843 N.W.2d 798 (Minn. Ct. App. 2014).
— Minn. Stat. § 541.15(b) — 5 cases
Whitener Ex Rel. Miller v. Dahl, 625 N.W.2d 827 (Minn. 2001). “Appellants argued that their suit was timely because each appellant is younger than age 18 and under the minority-tolling statute, Minn. Stat. § 541.15 (a)(1) (2000), the limitations provision for bringing an action under the Civil Damages Act is suspended until one year after a…”
D.M.S. v. Barber, 645 N.W.2d 383 (Minn. 2002). “The error of the majority is that it basically ignores subpart (d), the legislative declaration that Minn.Stat. § 541.15 (2000), the minority tolling statute, is unaffected by the delayed discovery statute.”
Bertram v. Poole, 597 N.W.2d 309 (Minn. Ct. App. 1999). “Rather, the dissent's reading would require any sexual abuse claim effected by infancy, under Minn.Stat. § 541.15, subd. (a)(1), to be brought before the victim's nineteenth birthday or it would be barred by the statute of limitations.”
J.J. v. Luckow, 578 N.W.2d 17 (Minn. Ct. App. 1998). “(citing Minn. Stat. § 541.15 (a)(1)). Troublesome as this observation may be, we are unpersuaded that it represents a reinterpretation of section 541.”
Whitener v. Dahl, 612 N.W.2d 188 (Minn. Ct. App. 2000).
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.