Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Herrmann v. McMenomy & Severson, 590 N.W.2d 641.

50 citing documents.

Maria Olson v. City of Cambridge, Jay T. Squires, Lisa Iverson, ... Minn. Ct. App. 2024
Maria Olson v. City of Cambridge, Jay T. Squires, Lisa Iverson, ... Minn. Ct. App. 2024
1 “A cause of action accrues and the statute of limitations begins to run when the cause of action will survive a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.” Herrmann v. McMenomy & Severson
Mark J. Kallenbach, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
6 Kallenbach argues that because Herrmann v. McMenomy & Severson, d 641, 643 (Minn. 1999), (quoting Herrmann), hold that “[a] cause of action accrues and the statute of limitation s begins to run when the cause of action will survive a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim,” it follows that his claims could not have accr
Thomas Shimota, Appellant, B&T Automotive, Inc., et al., Plaintiffs, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
at 335-38; see also Herrmann v. McMenomy & Severson, .
Mark Rodgers, et al., Appellants, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
at 336 (quoting Herrmann v. McMenomy & Severson, ).
James A. Compart, et al., Appellants, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
[and] the statute is not tolled by ignorance of the cause of action.” Herrmann v. McMenomy & Severson
Minn. 2019
See Herrmann v. McMenomy & Severson
Sec. Bank & Trust Co. v. Larkin, Hoffman, Daly & Lindgren, Ltd. 916 N.W.2d 491 Minn. 2018
Sec. Bank & Trust Co. v. Larkin, Hoffman, Daly & Lindgren, Ltd. 916 N.W.2d 491 Minn. 2018
See Frederick , d at 178 ; Antone , d at 335-36 ; Herrmann v. McMenomy & Severson , , 643 (Minn. 1999).
Minn. 2018
It is well established that a cause of action accrues for a legal -malpractice claim when “the cause of action will survive a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.” Herrmann v. McMenomy & Severson , (Minn .
Security Bank & Trust Co. v. Larkin, Hoffman, Daly & Lindgren, Ltd. 897 N.W.2d 821 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Security Bank & Trust Co. v. Larkin, Hoffman, Daly & Lindgren, Ltd. 897 N.W.2d 821 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
he time of the negligent act; (2) the “discovery” rule, under which the cause of action accrues when the plaintiff knew or should have known of the injury; and (3) the “damage” rule, under which the cause of action accrues “when ‘some damage has occurred as a result of the alleged malpractice.’ ” -36 (Minn. 2006) (quoting, Herrmann v. McMenomy & Severson, ).
Joseph W. Frederick v. Kay L. Wallerich Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Joseph W. Frederick v. Kay L. Wallerich Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Kenneth S. Benigni v. St. Louis County, State of Minnesota, by Department of Human Services, Lake Superior Community … Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Kenneth S. Benigni v. St. Louis County, State of Minnesota, by Department of Human Services, Lake Superior Community … Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Hermann v. McMenomy & Severson
Vaughn A. Veit v. ProSource Technologies, Inc., and third party v. Carlson Professional Services, Inc., third party 879 N.W.2d 8 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Vaughn A. Veit v. ProSource Technologies, Inc., and third party v. Carlson Professional Services, Inc., third party 879 N.W.2d 8 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
A cause of action accrues when it can “survive a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.” Herrmann v. McMenomy & Severson
Park Nicollet Clinic v. Hamann 808 N.W.2d 828 Minn. 2011
Park Nicollet Clinic v. Hamann 808 N.W.2d 828 Minn. 2011
Moreover, “the running of the statute [of limitations] does not depend on the ability to ascertain the exact amount of damages.” Herrmann v. McMenomy & Severson, (footnote omitted); see also Bachertz, 201 Minn. at 176 , 275 N.W.
Bee Yang v. State 805 N.W.2d 921 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
Bee Yang v. State 805 N.W.2d 921 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
Herrmann v. McMenomy & Severson
Ames & Fischer Co. v. McDonald 798 N.W.2d 557 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
Ames & Fischer Co. v. McDonald 798 N.W.2d 557 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
Under this rule, a cause of action accrues and the statute of limitations begins to run when “ ‘some’ damage has occurred as a result of the alleged malpractice.” Herrmann v. McMenomy & Severson
Oganov v. American Family Insurance Group 767 N.W.2d 21 Minn. 2009
Oganov v. American Family Insurance Group 767 N.W.2d 21 Minn. 2009
Herrmann v. McMenomy & Severson
MacRae v. Group Health Plan, Inc. 753 N.W.2d 711 Minn. 2008
MacRae v. Group Health Plan, Inc. 753 N.W.2d 711 Minn. 2008
In Dalton v. Dow Chemical Co., 280 Minn. 147, 153 , we construed a statute of limitations similar to the one at issue here and held that a cause of action accrues “at such time as it could be brought in a court *717 of law without dismissal for failure to state a claim.” See also Antone, d at 335 ; Herrmann v. McMenomy & Severson
Evelyn I. Rechtzigel Trust Ex Rel. Rechtzigel v. Fidelity National Title Insurance Co. of New York 748 N.W.2d 312 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
Evelyn I. Rechtzigel Trust Ex Rel. Rechtzigel v. Fidelity National Title Insurance Co. of New York 748 N.W.2d 312 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
Herrmann v. McMenomy & Severson
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
Herrmann v. McMenomy & Severson, (determining that the statutory .
Leiendecker v. Asian Women United of Minnesota 731 N.W.2d 836 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
Leiendecker v. Asian Women United of Minnesota 731 N.W.2d 836 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
See Herrmann v. McMenomy & Severson, (holding that cause of action accrues in a legal malpractice claim when “some” damage occurs); (holding that “some” damage means “compensable” damage).
Antone v. Mirviss 720 N.W.2d 331 Minn. 2006
Antone v. Mirviss 720 N.W.2d 331 Minn. 2006
Minnesota has taken the middle ground by adopting the “damage” rule of *336 accrual, under which the cause of action accrues and the statute of limitations begins to run when “ ‘some’ damage has occurred as a result of the alleged malpractice.” Herrmann v. McMenomy & Severson, see also Dalton, 280 Minn, at 154, d at 585 (“Until there is some damage, there is no claim and certainly a statute prescribing the time in which suit must be filed * * * can never operate prior to the time a suit woul
Antone v. Mirviss 694 N.W.2d 564 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
Antone v. Mirviss 694 N.W.2d 564 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
Herrmann v. McMenomy & Severson
Molloy v. Meier 679 N.W.2d 711 Minn. 2004
Molloy v. Meier 679 N.W.2d 711 Minn. 2004
Dalton v. Dow Chemical Co., 280 Minn. 147, 152-53 , see also Herrmann v. McMenomy & Severson, *721 643 (Minn.1999) (applying Dalton to legal malpractice claim).
Noske v. Friedberg 670 N.W.2d 740 Minn. 2003
Noske v. Friedberg 670 N.W.2d 740 Minn. 2003
“The statute of limitations for a legal malpractice action is six years.” Herrmann v. McMenomy & Severson, (citing Minn.Stat.
Williamson v. Prasciunas 661 N.W.2d 645 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
Williamson v. Prasciunas 661 N.W.2d 645 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
In Herrmann v. McMenomy & Severson, the Minnesota Supreme Court noted the difference.
Noske v. Friedberg 656 N.W.2d 409 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
Noske v. Friedberg 656 N.W.2d 409 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
“The statute of limitations for a legal malpractice action is six years.” Herrmann v. McMenomy & Severson, (citing Minn.Stat.
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
See Herrmann v. McMenomy & Severson
Jacobson v. Board of Trustees 627 N.W.2d 106 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
Jacobson v. Board of Trustees 627 N.W.2d 106 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
Hermann v. McMenomy & Severson