Minnesota Statutes

Minn. Stat. § 541.18 (2026)

New Action In Case Of Reversal

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MN-REVrevisor.mn.gov (official) Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Except where the Uniform Commercial Code otherwise prescribes, if judgment be recovered by plaintiff in an action begun within the prescribed period of limitation and such judgment be afterward arrested or reversed on error or appeal, the plaintiff may begin a new action within one year after such reversal or arrest.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 11 cases, 1971–2008 · leading case: Kulinski v. Medtronic Bio-Medicus, Inc., 577 N.W.2d 499 (Minn. 1998).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Kulinski v. Medtronic Bio-Medicus, Inc., 577 N.W.2d 499 (Minn. 1998). · cites it 28× “The district court found the “savings statute of limitations,” Minn.Stat. § 541.18 (1996), inapplicable because Kulinski “asserifed] a new claim” in the second action.”

James M. Kulinski v. Medtronic Bio-Medicus, Inc., James M. Kulinski v. Medtronic Bio-Medicus, Inc., 112 F.3d 368 (8th Cir. 1997). · cites it 4× “061 (1996), the question of the district court’s rejection of the application of the savings statute, Minn.Stat. § 541.18 (1990), to the facts of this case.”

Westman v. Andersohn (In Re Westman), 300 B.R. 338 (Bankr. D. Minn. 2003). · cites it 2× “Section 541.18 states that: A person who tows and stores a motor vehicle at the request of a law enforcement officer shall have a lien on the motor vehicle for the value of the storage and towing and the right to retain possession of the motor vehicle until the lien is lawfully…”

Goodman v. Best Buy, Inc., 755 N.W.2d 354 (Minn. Ct. App. 2008). · cites it 2× “But this language is not superfluous if section 1367(d) suspends the running of the statute of limitations.”

Duresky v. Hanson, 329 N.W.2d 44 (Minn. 1983). · cites it 2× “13 (1980), 6 months within which to make substituted service of process. We have never previously directly addressed this precise issue, nor have courts from other jurisdictions.”

Eliseuson v. Frayseth, 187 N.W.2d 685 (Minn. 1971). “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.”

James M. Kulinski v. Medtronic Bio-Medicus, Inc., James M. Kulinski v. Medtronic Bio-Medicus, Inc., 108 F.3d 904 (8th Cir. 1997). · cites it 3× “Kulinski first argues that his claim is not barred by the statute of limitations because he is not bringing a claim for “wages” for purposes of Minn.”

James M. Kulinski v. Medtronic Bio-Medicus, Inc., James M. Kulinski v. Medtronic Bio-Medicus, Inc., 143 F.3d 1117 (8th Cir. 1998). · cites it 5× “We return to this case following the answer by the Minnesota Supreme Court of a certified question of law relating to Minnesota savings statute, Minn.Stat. § 541.18 (1996). ’ Pursuant to Minn.”

James Kulinski v. Medtronic Bio-Med. (8th Cir. 1997). · cites it 4× “061 (1996), the question of the district court’s rejection of the application of the savings statute, Minn. Stat. § 541.18 (1990), to the facts of this case.”

James Kulinski v. Medtronic Bio-Med. (8th Cir. 1998). · cites it 4× “We return to this case following the answer by the Minnesota Supreme Court of a certified question of law relating to Minnesota savings statute, Minn. Stat. § 541.18 (1996). Pursuant to Minn.”

James Kulinski v. Medtronic Bio-Med. (8th Cir. 1997). · cites it 3× “Kulinski also argues that, even if the statute applies, his claim is not subject to the statute of limitations because it is saved under Minn. Stat. § 541.18 (1990). Finally, Kulinski seeks equitable relief from the statute of limitations.”

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.