Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Schmucking v. Mayo, 235 N.W. 633.

57 citing documents.

Minnesota Laborers Health & Welfare Fund v. Granite Re, Inc. 844 N.W.2d 509 Minn. 2014
Minnesota Laborers Health & Welfare Fund v. Granite Re, Inc. 844 N.W.2d 509 Minn. 2014
Schmucking v. Mayo, 183 Minn. 37, 40 , 235 N.W.
Minnesota Laborers Health & Welfare Fund v. Granite RE, Inc. 826 N.W.2d 210 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
Minnesota Laborers Health & Welfare Fund v. Granite RE, Inc. 826 N.W.2d 210 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
Schmucking v. Mayo, 183 Minn. 37, 38-39 , 235 N.W.
Sanchez v. State 816 N.W.2d 550 Minn. 2012
Sanchez v. State 816 N.W.2d 550 Minn. 2012
See, e.g., Schmucking v. Mayo, 183 Minn. 37, 38-39 , 235 N.W.
Hempel v. Creek House Trust 743 N.W.2d 305 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
Hempel v. Creek House Trust 743 N.W.2d 305 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
“This is upon the theory that ignorance is the result of want of diligence, and the party cannot take advantage of his own fault.” Schmucking v. Mayo, 183 Minn. 37, 39 , 235 N.W.
Molloy v. Meier 679 N.W.2d 711 Minn. 2004
Molloy v. Meier 660 N.W.2d 444 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
Molloy v. Meier 660 N.W.2d 444 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
Schmucking v. Mayo, 183 Minn. 37, 40-41 , 235 N.W.
Peggy Rose Revocable Trust v. Eppich 640 N.W.2d 601 Minn. 2002
Peggy Rose Revocable Trust v. Eppich 640 N.W.2d 601 Minn. 2002
In Schmucking v. Mayo, 183 Minn. 37, 40 , 235 N.W.
Buller v. A.O. Smith Harvestore Products, Inc. 518 N.W.2d 537 Minn. 1994
Buller v. A.O. Smith Harvestore Products, Inc. 518 N.W.2d 537 Minn. 1994
r two reasons: (1) the plaintiff who does not assert his or her right because of the defendant’s fraudulent concealment is not within the “mischief’ sought to be remedied by a statute of limitations, and (2) the defendant who fraudulently conceals a cause of action “should not be permitted to shield himself behind the statute of limitations where his own fraud has placed him.” Schmucking v. Mayo, 183 Minn. 37, 40 , 235 N.W.
Fabio v. Bellomo 504 N.W.2d 758 Minn. 1993
Haberle v. Buchwald 480 N.W.2d 351 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
Haberle v. Buchwald 480 N.W.2d 351 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
See Schmucking v. Mayo, 183 Minn. 37, 40-41 , 235 N.W.
Cohen v. Appert 463 N.W.2d 787 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
Cohen v. Appert 463 N.W.2d 787 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
The Minnesota Supreme Court first adopted the doctrine that fraud tolls a limitation period in Schmucking v. Mayo, 183 Minn. 37 , 235 N.W.
Francis v. Hansing 449 N.W.2d 479 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Mutual Service Life Insurance Co. v. Galaxy Builders, Inc. 435 N.W.2d 136 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Mutual Service Life Insurance Co. v. Galaxy Builders, Inc. 435 N.W.2d 136 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
1093 , 47 L.Ed.2d 307 (1976); Murray v. Fox, 300 Minn. 373 , City of Coon Rapids v. Suburban Engineering, Inc., 283 Minn. 151 , Couillard v. *140 Charles T. Miller Hospital, Inc., 253 Minn. 418 , Voegele v. Mahoney, 237 Minn. 43 , Schmucking v. Mayo, 183 Minn. 37 , 235 N.W.
Tackleson v. Abbott-Northwestern Hospital, Inc. 415 N.W.2d 733 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Tackleson v. Abbott-Northwestern Hospital, Inc. 415 N.W.2d 733 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
In Schmucking v. Mayo, 183 Minn. 37 , 235 N.W.
Collins v. Johnson 374 N.W.2d 536 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Collins v. Johnson 374 N.W.2d 536 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
The rule tolling the statute of limitations when there is fraudulent concealment of a cause of action is set forth in Schmucking v. Mayo, 183 Minn. 37 , 235 N.W.
DeCosse v. Armstrong Cork Co. 319 N.W.2d 45 Minn. 1982
DeCosse v. Armstrong Cork Co. 319 N.W.2d 45 Minn. 1982
This court first adopted the doctrine that fraud tolls a limitation period in Schmucking v. Mayo, 183 Minn. 37 , 235 N.W.
Kopperud v. Agers 312 N.W.2d 443 Minn. 1981
Kopperud v. Agers 312 N.W.2d 443 Minn. 1981
Schmucking v. Mayo, 183 Minn. 37 , 235 N.W.
Wild v. Rarig 234 N.W.2d 775 Minn. 1975
Wild v. Rarig 234 N.W.2d 775 Minn. 1975
(3 ed.) § 5608; Schmucking v. Mayo, 183 Minn. 37 , Couillard v. Charles T. Miller Hospital, Inc. 253 Minn. 418 , for the general rule that for most causes of action fraudulent concealment of the existence of a cause of action will toll the statute of limitations, postponing the commencement of the running of the statute u
Murray v. Fox 220 N.W.2d 356 Minn. 1974
Murray v. Fox 220 N.W.2d 356 Minn. 1974
And, notwithstanding plaintiff’s allegation that defendants failed to communicate with her as to her medical status (cf. Schmucking v. Mayo, 183 Minn. 37 , ), the evidence clearly establishes that she was actually aware of the facts upon which that claim is based at least by mid-May 1964, more than 2 years before the commencement of her action against either defendant.
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
187 , 189: “* * * A policy reason [for the rule] is that the patient must repose reliance upon his physician in the completion of the course of curative treatment, a relationship of trust which inhibits the patient’s ability to discover acts of omission or commission constituting malpractice.” Before the general rule was reaffirmed in the second Schmit case, this court held in Schmucking v. Mayo, 183 Minn. 37 , , that if a physician prevents a patient from discovering a cause of action against t
Swang v. Hauser 180 N.W.2d 187 Minn. 1970
Swang v. Hauser 180 N.W.2d 187 Minn. 1970
And, notwithstanding plaintiff’s allegation that defendants failed to communicate with her as to her medical status (cf. Schmucking v. Mayo, 183 Minn. 37 , ), the evidence clearly establishes that she was actually aware of the facts upon which that claim is based at least by mid-May 1964, more than 2 years before the commencement of her action against either defendant.
Hall v. Community Credit Company 178 N.W.2d 245 Minn. 1970
Hall v. Community Credit Company 178 N.W.2d 245 Minn. 1970
Couillard v. Charles T. Miller Hospital, Inc. 253 Minn. 418 , 92 N. W. (2d) 96 ; Schmucking v. Mayo, 183 Minn. 37 , .
City of Coon Rapids v. Suburban Engineering, Inc. 167 N.W.2d 493 Minn. 1969
City of Coon Rapids v. Suburban Engineering, Inc. 167 N.W.2d 493 Minn. 1969
Voegele v. Mahoney, 237 Minn. 43 , 54 N. W. (2d) 15 ; Schmucking v. Mayo, 183 Minn. 37 , .
Dalton v. Dow Chemical Co. 158 N.W.2d 580 Minn. 1968
Dalton v. Dow Chemical Co. 158 N.W.2d 580 Minn. 1968
Until there is some damage, there is no claim and certainly a statute prescribing the time in which suit must be filed (whether as a condition of right or remedy) can never operate prior to the time a suit would be permitted.” Plaintiff has cited several malpractice cases involving claims against a physician or clinic, among them Schmucking v. Mayo, 183 Minn. 37 , .
Bustad v. Bustad 116 N.W.2d 552 Minn. 1962
Bustad v. Bustad 116 N.W.2d 552 Minn. 1962
1 See, also, Couillard v. Charles T. Miller Hospital, Inc. 253 Minn. 418, 428 , 92 N. W. (2d) 96, 103 ; Voegele v. Mahoney, 237 Minn. 43, 49 , 54 N. W. (2d) 15, 19 ; Schmucking v. Mayo, 183 Minn. 37, 39 , ; Weston v. Jones, 160 Minn. 32, 36 , .
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
Schmucking v. Mayo, 183 Minn. 37 , .
Voegele v. Mahoney 54 N.W.2d 15 Minn. 1952