Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Murray v. Fox, 220 N.W.2d 356.

28 citing documents.

Broek v. Park Nicollet Health Services 660 N.W.2d 439 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
Broek v. Park Nicollet Health Services 660 N.W.2d 439 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
See, e.g., Murray v. Fox, 300 Minn. 373 , (applying “single act” exception to cause of action arising from alleged negligent surgical procedure).
Ciardelli v. Rindal 582 N.W.2d 910 Minn. 1998
Ciardelli v. Rindal 582 N.W.2d 910 Minn. 1998
Specifically, the plaintiff “sustained damage * * * when she was hospitalized for [pelvic inflammatory disease] and the * * * IUD was removed.” Id.; see also Murray v. Fox, 300 Minn. 373, 376
Ciardelli v. Rindal 565 N.W.2d 465 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
Ciardelli v. Rindal 565 N.W.2d 465 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
In determining that treatment ended on the date of Rindal’s last in-office examination of Ciardelli, the district court relied on Krause and on Murray v. Fox, 300 Minn. 373 , which both held that treatment was terminated on the date of the patient’s last visit to the doctor’s office.
Fabio v. Bellomo 489 N.W.2d 241 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
Fabio v. Bellomo 489 N.W.2d 241 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
Murray v. Fox, 300 Minn. 373, 377-78
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.
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
Similarly, in Murray v. Fox, 300 Minn. 373, 376-77 , -59 (1974), we held a patient’s claim for malpractice, alleging the physician was negligent in deciding upon and undertaking surgery, was barred by the statute of limitations despite other treatment within two years because the event of *429 alleged malpractice irrevocably occurred on the
Holstad v. Southwestern Porcelain, Inc. 421 N.W.2d 371 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Holstad v. Southwestern Porcelain, Inc. 421 N.W.2d 371 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
26, 1985) (citing Murray v. Fox, 300 Minn. 373, 379 , ).
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
See Murray v. Fox, 300 Minn. 373, 376 , (explaining Swang v. Hauser, 288 Minn. 306 , ).
Crenshaw v. St. Paul Ramsey Medical Center 379 N.W.2d 720 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Crenshaw v. St. Paul Ramsey Medical Center 379 N.W.2d 720 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Id.; Murray v. Fox, 300 Minn. 373 , pet.
Krause v. Farber 379 N.W.2d 93 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Krause v. Farber 379 N.W.2d 93 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Two separate policies underlie the rule that the statute begins to run when treatment terminates: “the practical difficulty in determining the precise time of the act or acts of treatment” and the “need for confidence in the physician during a course of treatment.” Murray v. Fox, 300 Minn. 373, 377
Collins v. Johnson 374 N.W.2d 536 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Collins v. Johnson 374 N.W.2d 536 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
See Murray v. Fox, *542 300 Minn. 373, 379
Giles v. Sanford Memorial Hospital & Nursing Home 371 N.W.2d 635 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Giles v. Sanford Memorial Hospital & Nursing Home 371 N.W.2d 635 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Murray v. Fox, 300 Minn. 373, 379 , Johnson, 291 Minn. at 150-51 , d at 81 .
Marriage of Carlson v. Carlson 371 N.W.2d 591 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Marriage of Carlson v. Carlson 371 N.W.2d 591 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
See Murray v. Fox, 300 Minn. 373
Grondahl v. Bulluck 318 N.W.2d 240 Minn. 1982
Grondahl v. Bulluck 318 N.W.2d 240 Minn. 1982
We recognize that in Murray v. Fox, 300 Minn. 373 , we denied a plaintiff’s claim that treatment had continued during a conversation in the physician’s office which would have prevented a bar of the statute of limitations.