Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Schmitt v. Esser, 226 N.W. 196.

30 citing documents.

Molloy v. Meier 679 N.W.2d 711 Minn. 2004
Molloy v. Meier 679 N.W.2d 711 Minn. 2004
Schmitt v. Esser, 178 Minn. 82, 86 , 226 N.W.
Haberle v. Buchwald 480 N.W.2d 351 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
Haberle v. Buchwald 480 N.W.2d 351 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
Schmitt v. Esser, 178 Minn. 82, 86 , 226 N.W.
Willette v. the Mayo Foundation 458 N.W.2d 120 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
Willette v. the Mayo Foundation 458 N.W.2d 120 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
Johnson v. Winthrop Laboratories Division of Sterling Drug, Inc., 291 Minn. 145 , Schmitt v. Esser, 178 Minn. 82 , 226 N.W.
St. Aubin v. Burke 434 N.W.2d 282 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
St. Aubin v. Burke 434 N.W.2d 282 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
In Schmitt v. Esser, 178 Minn. 82 , 226 N.W.
Offerdahl v. University of Minnesota Hospitals & Clinics 426 N.W.2d 425 Minn. 1988
Offerdahl v. University of Minnesota Hospitals & Clinics 426 N.W.2d 425 Minn. 1988
In Schmitt v. Esser, 178 Minn. 82 , 226 N.W.
Offerdahl v. University of Minnesota Hospitals & Clinics 411 N.W.2d 20 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Offerdahl v. University of Minnesota Hospitals & Clinics 411 N.W.2d 20 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
The supreme court has stated that the treatment should be viewed as a whole, “and if there occurred therein malpractice the statute of limitations begins to run when the treatment ceases.” Schmitt v. Esser, 178 Minn. 82, 86 , 226 N.W.
Murray v. Fox 220 N.W.2d 356 Minn. 1974
Murray v. Fox 220 N.W.2d 356 Minn. 1974
See Schmit v. Esser, 178 Minn. 82 , ; Id.
Johnson v. Winthrop Laboratories Division of Sterling Drug, Inc. 190 N.W.2d 77 Minn. 1971
Johnson v. Winthrop Laboratories Division of Sterling Drug, Inc. 190 N.W.2d 77 Minn. 1971
There, we reaffirmed the rule, announced in an earlier case involving the same parties, 178 Minn. 82 , , that the 2-year statutory period commences to run when the treatment ceases.
Swang v. Hauser 180 N.W.2d 187 Minn. 1970
Swang v. Hauser 180 N.W.2d 187 Minn. 1970
Schmitt v. Esser, 178 Minn. 82 , ; Id.
Couillard v. Charles T. Miller Hospital, Inc. 92 N.W.2d 96 Minn. 1958
Couillard v. Charles T. Miller Hospital, Inc. 92 N.W.2d 96 Minn. 1958
Schmit v. Esser, 178 Minn. 82 , ; Id.
Plotnik v. Lewis 261 N.W. 867 Minn. 1935
Plotnik v. Lewis 261 N.W. 867 Minn. 1935
We think the principles approved of and stated in Schmitt v. Esser, 178 Minn. 82 , ; Id.
Schmit v. Esser 236 N.W. 622 Minn. 1931
Schmit v. Esser 236 N.W. 622 Minn. 1931
The case was here before on appeal from an order overruling a demurrer to the complaint and is reported in 178 Minn. 82 , .
Bush v. Cress 233 N.W. 317 Minn. 1930
Bush v. Cress 233 N.W. 317 Minn. 1930
Schmitt v. Esser, 178 Minn. 82 , ; Bush v. Cress, 178 Minn. 482 , .
Schanil v. Branton 232 N.W. 708 Minn. 1930
Schanil v. Branton 232 N.W. 708 Minn. 1930
The effect of the statute was determined adversely to the defendants’ contention in Schmitt v. Esser, 178 Minn. 82 , ; and Bush v. Cress, 178 Minn. 482 , , where Ave held that it did not commence to run until the treatment ended.
Bush v. Cress 227 N.W. 432 Minn. 1929
Bush v. Cress 227 N.W. 432 Minn. 1929
In Schmitt v. Esser, 178 Minn. 82, 86 , , involving malpractice in the treatment of a fracture, we said that “the treatment and employment should be considered as a whole, and if there occurred therein malpractice the statute of limitations begins to run when the treatment ceases.” The case for the plaintiff here is quite as strong.