Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite MacRae v. Group Health Plan, Inc., 753 N.W.2d 711.

43 citing documents.

Cynthia Pitchford as Trustee for the Heirs and Next-of-Kin of D-Angelo Pitchford, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2026
Health Plan, Inc., (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota Office of the Attorney General v. Madison Equities, Inc. Minn. 2026
State of Minnesota Office of the Attorney General v. Madison Equities, Inc. Minn. 2026
Doug Hoskin, Appellant, vs. Josh Krsnak, et al., Respondents Minn. 2025
Doug Hoskin, Appellant, vs. Josh Krsnak, et al., Respondents Minn. 2025
Antonio Ray Seals, Jr., a minor child by his Mother and Natural Guardian Marciana Davis, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
Health Plan, Inc., (quotations omitted).
Richard Nichols, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2024
Casey Michael Dynan, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2024
Mark J. Kallenbach, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
Makenzie Moore, a minor, by and through her Conservator, First Fiduciary Corporation, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
Health Plan, Inc., (quotation omitted).
Minn. 2023
Andres Lugo, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
“Because an assertion that the statute of limitations bars a cause of action is an affirmative defense, the party asserting the defense has the burden of establishing each of the elements.” MacRae v. Group Health Plan, Inc.
Minnesota Bank & Trust, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
Health Plan, Inc. , (requiring moving party to establish each element of affirmative defense); Glass Serv.
Peg Otte, et al., Appellants, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
McRae v. Group Health Plan, Inc.
Meagan Abel, Minn. 2020
A19-0155 Minn. 2020
James A. Compart, et al., Appellants, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
A. Darlene Gibson, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
Health Plan , Inc., d 711, 716 (Minn. 2008).
In the Matter of Virginia Marie Carlson, Unlicensed. Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Minn. 2019
Ren Xu, et al., Appellants, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Health Plan, Inc. , ), review denied (Minn. May 18, 2010).
Richard R. Ryan, Trustee for the Next-of-Kin of Debra Lynn Ryan, Decedent for Action for Death by Wrongful … Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Health Plan, Inc., (quotation omitted).
Heather Fitzgerald, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Respondents appear to argue that the single-act exception is the generally applicable rule because, according to respondents, the Minnesota Supreme Court overruled the termination-of-treatment rule in MacRae v. Group Health Plan, Inc.
Randy L. Brandt v. Wayne E. Lee Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Randy L. Brandt v. Wayne E. Lee Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Health Plan, Inc., 4 The Brandts and R & P argue that the district court erred in concluding that the foreclosure-consultant claim was barred as a result of the 2008 action.
Gary Carlson v. Ray Barta Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Gary Carlson v. Ray Barta Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Dickhoff ex rel. Dickhoff v. Green 836 N.W.2d 321 Minn. 2013
Dickhoff ex rel. Dickhoff v. Green 836 N.W.2d 321 Minn. 2013
Health Plan, Inc., (noting that a statement that is not necessary to the holding in a case is not binding precedent).
Gallaher v. Titler 812 N.W.2d 897 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
Gallaher v. Titler 812 N.W.2d 897 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
Dickhoff ex rel. Dickhoff v. Green 811 N.W.2d 109 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
Dickhoff ex rel. Dickhoff v. Green 811 N.W.2d 109 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
Regarding injury, the Dickhoffs maintain that Jocelyn has stated a medical-malpractice claim for failure to diagnose, relying on MacRae v. Group Health Plan, Inc.
Park Nicollet Clinic v. Hamann 808 N.W.2d 828 Minn. 2011
Park Nicollet Clinic v. Hamann 808 N.W.2d 828 Minn. 2011
BankCHEROKEE v. INSIGNIA DEVELOPMENT, LLC 779 N.W.2d 896 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
BankCHEROKEE v. INSIGNIA DEVELOPMENT, LLC 779 N.W.2d 896 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
See MacRae v. Group Health Plan, Inc., (stating that a party asserting an affirmative defense has the burden of proving the defense’s elements).
Fleeger v. Wyeth 771 N.W.2d 524 Minn. 2009
Fleeger v. Wyeth 771 N.W.2d 524 Minn. 2009
MacRae v. Group Health Plan, Inc., -17 (Minn.2008) (citing Dalton v. Dow Chem.
Blohm v. Kelly 765 N.W.2d 147 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
Blohm v. Kelly 765 N.W.2d 147 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
P. 56.03; see also MacRae v. Group Health Plan, Inc.
Stroop v. Farmers Insurance Exchange 764 N.W.2d 384 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
Stroop v. Farmers Insurance Exchange 764 N.W.2d 384 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
“The construction and application of a statute of limitations, including the law governing the accrual of a cause of action, is a question of law and is reviewed de novo.” MacRae v. Group Health Plan, Inc.