Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Mercer v. Andersen, 715 N.W.2d 114.

60 citing documents.

Anjela Carpenter v. Meridian Behavioral Health LLC Minn. Ct. App. 2026
“An exception to this rule applies when the alleged negligent acts are within the general knowledge or experience of laypersons.”
Edward Gerrety, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2026
of Minn., (concluding expert’s conclusory explanation of causation was insufficient); (affirming dismissal of malpractice claim where affidavit included a “single sentence on causation”).
Munda Forbort, et al., Appellants, Minn. Ct. App. 2026
at 58 (quotation omitted)
Hope Larsen v. Erin Lee Mullen and d/b/a Running LL's Ranch Minn. Ct. App. 2026
Hope Larsen v. Erin Lee Mullen and d/b/a Running LL's Ranch Minn. Ct. App. 2026
Larry Kenneth Alexander v. Tyson's Towing and Transport LLC, GSIC Southview LLC, ... Minn. Ct. App. 2025
Larry Kenneth Alexander v. Tyson's Towing and Transport LLC, GSIC Southview LLC, ... Minn. Ct. App. 2025
Brindalyn P. Foster, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
“Expert testimony is generally required in medical- malpractice cases because they involve complex scientific or technological issues.”
Chad Darwin Koetz, Trustee for the Heirs and Next-of-Kin of Gloria Lynn Koetz, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
See, -50 (Minn. 2000) (concluding that the district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing the plaintiff’s claim after the 180 -day deadline to submit an affidavit of expert identification expired); (providing that the discretion is subject to the requirements of Minn. Stat. § 145 .682, which “is unambiguous and requires strict compliance with its provisions”).
Shawn Drewicke v. State Farm Fire and Casualty Company Minn. Ct. App. 2025
Shawn Drewicke v. State Farm Fire and Casualty Company Minn. Ct. App. 2025
Moreover, a district court “has the power to determine whether it has jurisdiction,” even though “a court’s authority over an ineffectively served defendant may be circumscribed.”
Jay Maurice, as Trustee for the next-of-kin of Jon Maurice, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
And interpreting a radiologist’s report is not “within the general knowledge or experience of laypersons.” (noting an exception to the requirement of offering expert testimony).
Andrew Joseph Haman v. Seth Tyberg Minn. Ct. App. 2023
Andrew Joseph Haman v. Seth Tyberg Minn. Ct. App. 2023
In making its determination
Marlene Fearing, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
“An exception to this rule applies when the alleged negligent acts are within the general knowledge or experience of laypersons.”
Makenzie Moore, a minor, by and through her Conservator, First Fiduciary Corporation, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
“Expert testimony is generally required in medical-malpractice cases because they involve complex scientific or technological issues.”
Wayne E. Hukriede, et al., Appellants, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
“The district court has broad discretion to amend scheduling-order deadlines, and we review its decision for an abuse of discretion.”
John Robinson, et al., Appellants, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
d 114, 123 (Minn. App. 2006).
Joseph Kurian, individually, and as Trustee for Samael Alessandro Ittyerah, deceased, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
“Expert testimony is generally required in medical-malpractice cases because they involve complex scientific or technological issues.” 22 (Minn. App. 2006).
Lisa Thielen, et al., Appellants, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
It cites Mercer v. Andersen , arguing that it stands for the proposition that an “ineffectiv ely served defendant” “can 8 invoke the district court’s c onsideration of a non-jurisdictional issue to dismiss the case with prejudice.” In Mercer, the district court dismissed the pl aintiff’s complaint with prejudice on the gr
William M. Ross, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
The Gables at the Reserve Homeowners Association, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
In re Skyline Materials, Ltd. , -78 (Minn. 2013); see also Mercer v. Andersen
Allstate Indemnity Company, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
Erica Vipond, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
An exception to the requirement for expe rt testimony and affidavit applies “when the alleged negligent acts are within the general knowledge or experience of laypersons.” Mercer v. Andersen , (citing Tousignant v. St.
Samuel Zean, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
District courts have wide discretion in scheduling deadlines, and granting continuances
Jason Rhoades, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Deborah Harris, et al., Appellants, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Manor Warehouse & Delivery, Inc., Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Hollis J. Larson, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Freddie James Prewitt-Bey, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
The expert-discl osure statute requires strict compliance, and noncompliance results in “mandatory dismissa l with prejudice.” Mercer v. Andersen
In the Matter of the Estate of: Mitzi M. Olson, a/k/a Mitzi Marie Olson, Decedent. Minn. Ct. App. 2015
In the Matter of the Estate of: Mitzi M. Olson, a/k/a Mitzi Marie Olson, Decedent. Minn. Ct. App. 2015
“Statutes of limitations are both 7 procedural and substantive because they regulate when a party may file a lawsuit and when a lawsuit is barred.”
Glendalough Homeowners' Association v. Jovani Nassar, and third party v. Evermoor Community Association, third party Community Development, Inc., … Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Glendalough Homeowners' Association v. Jovani Nassar, and third party v. Evermoor Community Association, third party Community Development, Inc., … Minn. Ct. App. 2015
(“We review a dismissal with prejudice for an abuse of discretion .
Mohrman & Kaardal, P.A. v. Gene Rechtzigel Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Mohrman & Kaardal, P.A. v. Gene Rechtzigel Minn. Ct. App. 2015
A “district court has broad discretion to amend scheduling-order deadlines, and we review its decision for an abuse of discretion.”
Johnny L. Moore v. Park Nicollet Methodist Hospital Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Johnny L. Moore v. Park Nicollet Methodist Hospital Minn. Ct. App. 2015
“When a medical- malpractice claim is based on a single act of allegedly negligent conduct rather than a course of treatment, the cause of action accrues when the plaintiff sustains damage from the act.”
Mary Beth Davidson v. North Memorial Health Care, d/b/a North Memorial Medical Center, and d/b/a North Memorial Ambulance … Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Mary Beth Davidson v. North Memorial Health Care, d/b/a North Memorial Medical Center, and d/b/a North Memorial Ambulance … Minn. Ct. App. 2015
“Expert testimony is generally required in medical-malpractice cases because they involve complex scientific or technological issues.”
Curtis Anderson v. Bradly J. Donabauer Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Curtis Anderson v. Bradly J. Donabauer Minn. Ct. App. 2014
The purpose of these requirements is “to dismiss meritless claims at an early stage of litigation,” 4 by providing the district court with information to assess the merits of a medical- malpractice case immediately after it is filed, see Lindberg, d at 578 (stating that the statute “is the legislative choice to implement the policy o
Timothy Guzick, as Personal Representative of the Estate of George J. Nyberg and as Trustee of the George … Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Timothy Guzick, as Personal Representative of the Estate of George J. Nyberg and as Trustee of the George … Minn. Ct. App. 2014
A “single sentence on causation is insufficient.” d 114, 123 (Minn. App. 2006).
Robert Bonczek v. Donald Erickson, DDS, Mark Wilson, Periodontist, Mayo Clinic - Rochester, University of Minnesota - Minneapolis, … Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Robert Bonczek v. Donald Erickson, DDS, Mark Wilson, Periodontist, Mayo Clinic - Rochester, University of Minnesota - Minneapolis, … Minn. Ct. App. 2014
“Expert testimony is generally required in medical-malpractice cases because they involve complex scientific or technological issues.” d 114, 122 (Minn. App. 2006).
Julie L. Pfeiffer, Trustee on behalf of the heirs and next of kin of Dale R. Pfeiffer v. … 851 N.W.2d 626 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Julie L. Pfeiffer, Trustee on behalf of the heirs and next of kin of Dale R. Pfeiffer v. … 851 N.W.2d 626 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Meeker v. IDS Property Casualty Insurance Co. 846 N.W.2d 468 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Meeker v. IDS Property Casualty Insurance Co. 846 N.W.2d 468 Minn. Ct. App. 2014