Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Noske v. Friedberg, 670 N.W.2d 740.

43 citing documents.

A25-1243 A25-1281 Minn. Ct. App. 2026
it is not possible on any evidence which might be produced, consistent with the pleader’ s theory, 8 to grant the relief demanded.” (quotation omitted).
James R. Martin, Patrick S. Martin v. Mid-America Festivals Corporation Minn. Ct. App. 2023
James R. Martin, Patrick S. Martin v. Mid-America Festivals Corporation Minn. Ct. App. 2023
“[W]ith respect to any element, if it is not ‘possible on any evidence which might be produced, consistent with the pleader’s theory, to grant the relief demanded,’ the claim will be dismissed.” (quoting Martens, d at 739-40).
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 accrued until he knew the identities of the alleged tortfeaso
State of Minnesota by Smart Growth Minneapolis, et al., Minn. 2021
P. 12.02(e) is minimal.”
Erik Peterson, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
The district court also found that 1 In the alternative, Peterson could not bring his malpractice claim without first having his criminal judgment overturned.
Jeffrey J. Boelter, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
Timothy J. Keane, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
A complaint must “allege sufficient facts to state a claim.”
Peter G. Noe, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Minn. 2018
d 740, 742 (Minn. 2003); see Minn. R. Civ.
James Leach, et al., Appellants, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Jason Donald Matakis v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Jason Donald Matakis v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2017
ed without meaningful review, and (4) the deficiency caused [Matakis] to miss the two-year post-conviction window without any meaningful review.” Matakis argues that “[u]ntil the Minnesota Supreme Court issued [its] opinion” affirming the denial of his first postconviction petition, he “did not have a claim for ineffective assistance of counsel.”
Joel Wells v. Rick E. Mattox Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Joel Wells v. Rick E. Mattox Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Patrick Brinkman v. Stephen M. Thompson Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Patrick Brinkman v. Stephen M. Thompson Minn. Ct. App. 2016
But “[f]ailure to establish any one of these elements defeats the entire claim.”
Elfi E. Janssen v. Lommen, Abdo, Cole, King & Stageberg, P. A., Sibley Holdings, LLC Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Elfi E. Janssen v. Lommen, Abdo, Cole, King & Stageberg, P. A., Sibley Holdings, LLC Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Sanchez v. State 816 N.W.2d 550 Minn. 2012
Sanchez v. State 816 N.W.2d 550 Minn. 2012
Sanchez contends that “[i]n other cases involving criminal defense counsel’s ineffective assistance, this [cjourt has extended the time a claim arises beyond the time the attorney commits the unprofessional conduct.” According to Sanchez, Noske supports his argument that an interests-of-justice claim
Park Nicollet Clinic v. Hamann 808 N.W.2d 828 Minn. 2011
Park Nicollet Clinic v. Hamann 808 N.W.2d 828 Minn. 2011
(“The showing a plaintiff must make in order to survive a motion to dismiss under Minn. R. Civ.
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
In Re Individual 35w Bridge Litigation 786 N.W.2d 890 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
In Re Individual 35w Bridge Litigation 786 N.W.2d 890 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
Bakken v. Helgeson 785 N.W.2d 791 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
Bakken v. Helgeson 785 N.W.2d 791 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
ANALYSIS “The construction and applicability of statutes of limitations are questions of law that this court reviews de novo.” (quotation omitted).
Antone v. Mirviss 720 N.W.2d 331 Minn. 2006
Antone v. Mirviss 720 N.W.2d 331 Minn. 2006
But our case law does support a broad interpretation of the concept of “some damage.” See, (“The showing a plaintiff must make in order to survive a motion to dismiss under Minn. R. Civ.
Noske v. Friedberg 713 N.W.2d 866 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
Noske v. Friedberg 713 N.W.2d 866 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
Noske v. Friedberg aff'd
Jerry's Enterprises, Inc. v. Larkin, Hoffman, Daly & Lindgren, Ltd. 711 N.W.2d 811 Minn. 2006
Jerry's Enterprises, Inc. v. Larkin, Hoffman, Daly & Lindgren, Ltd. 711 N.W.2d 811 Minn. 2006
Northwestern National Insurance Co. v. Carlson 711 N.W.2d 821 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
Northwestern National Insurance Co. v. Carlson 711 N.W.2d 821 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
Thomas A. Foster & Associates, Ltd. v. Paulson 699 N.W.2d 1 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
Thomas A. Foster & Associates, Ltd. v. Paulson 699 N.W.2d 1 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
State Farm v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Co. 678 N.W.2d 719 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
State Farm v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Co. 678 N.W.2d 719 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
Entzion v. Illinois Farmers Insurance Co. 675 N.W.2d 925 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
Entzion v. Illinois Farmers Insurance Co. 675 N.W.2d 925 Minn. Ct. App. 2004

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by