Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Molloy v. Meier, 679 N.W.2d 711.

58 citing documents.

Michelin Properties LLC, Plaintiff, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
Instead, a professional can owe a duty of care to the parents of a child who was harmed by negligent advice from the child’s physician, or a threatened individual who was harmed by a negligent action of a patient’s psychiatrist, -29 (Minn. 1984).
Court of Appeals Hudson, J. Dissenting as to Part I, Anderson, J., David Smits, as Trustee for the … Minn. 2022
(finding that a duty existed where negligently performed genetic testing of a child foreseeably led the patient’s mother to decide that it was safe to have additional children); Skillings v. Allen, 173 N.W.
Warren v. Dinter 926 N.W.2d 370 Minn. 2019
Warren v. Dinter 926 N.W.2d 370 Minn. 2019
See Kohoutek v. Hafner , , 303 (Minn. 1986) ; see also Molloy v. Meier ( Molloy II ), , 717 (Minn. 2004) ("A medical malpractice action is based on principles of tort liability for negligence....").
In re Annexation of Certain Real Prop. to the City of Proctor from Midway Twp. 925 N.W.2d 216 Minn. 2019
In re Annexation of Certain Real Prop. to the City of Proctor from Midway Twp. 925 N.W.2d 216 Minn. 2019
See Molloy v. Meier , , 723 (Minn. 2004).
328 Barry Avenue, LLC v. Nolan Properties Group, LLC 871 N.W.2d 745 Minn. 2015
328 Barry Avenue, LLC,Appellant v. Nolan Properties Group, LLC, and third party v. Carciofini Company, third party Marvin … Minn. 2015
328 Barry Avenue, LLC v. Nolan Properties Group, LLC 871 N.W.2d 745 Minn. 2015
328 Barry Avenue, LLC,Appellant v. Nolan Properties Group, LLC, and third party v. Carciofini Company, third party Marvin … Minn. 2015
d 711, 723 (Minn. 2004).
Gary Carlson v. Ray Barta Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Gary Carlson v. Ray Barta Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Sanchez v. State 816 N.W.2d 550 Minn. 2012
Sanchez v. State 816 N.W.2d 550 Minn. 2012
(medical malpractice); Vlahos v. R & I Const. of Bloomington, Inc., -79 (Minn.2004) (breach of warranty for new home construction); D.M.S., d at 387-88 (personal injury through sexual abuse); Wild, 302 Minn. at 449 , d at 794 (defamation).
In Re the Estate of Eckley 780 N.W.2d 407 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
In Re the Estate of Eckley 780 N.W.2d 407 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
(when unambiguous, the plain language of a statute is controlling).
Brua v. MINNESOTA JOINT UNDERWRITING ASS'N 778 N.W.2d 294 Minn. 2010
Brua v. MINNESOTA JOINT UNDERWRITING ASS'N 778 N.W.2d 294 Minn. 2010
State v. Hodges 770 N.W.2d 515 Minn. 2009
State v. Hodges 770 N.W.2d 515 Minn. 2009
Pigs R US, LLC v. Compton Township 770 N.W.2d 212 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
Pigs R US, LLC v. Compton Township 770 N.W.2d 212 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
Wallboard, Inc. v. St. Cloud Mall, LLC 758 N.W.2d 356 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
Wallboard, Inc. v. St. Cloud Mall, LLC 758 N.W.2d 356 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
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
The court noted that “[t]here is a ‘longstanding principle that malpractice actions based on failures to diagnose generally accrue at the time of the misdiagnosis, because some damage generally occurs at that time.’ ” () Because “the particular lesion biopsied by Dr. Kelly healed and Dr. Kelly did nothing more for this specific ailment,” the court also found that there was no continuing course of treatment and that the single act rule applied.
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
s claim would have survived a 12(b)(6) motion); see also Antone, d at 335-36 (holding that a claimant was barred by a statute of limitations from seeking dam *312 ages for legal malpractice where the attorney negligently prepared an antenuptial agreement although this negligence was not discovered until the marriage was dissolved 12 years after the agreement’s creation); (reaffirming the “longstanding principle” that the statute of limitations for medical malpractice claims based on failures to
Marriage of McIntosh v. McIntosh 740 N.W.2d 1 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
Marriage of McIntosh v. McIntosh 740 N.W.2d 1 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
Paradigm Enterprises, Inc. v. Westfield National Insurance Co. 738 N.W.2d 416 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
Paradigm Enterprises, Inc. v. Westfield National Insurance Co. 738 N.W.2d 416 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
MN. ASSN. OF PROF. EMPLOYEES v. Anderson 736 N.W.2d 699 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
Minnesota Ass'n of Professional Employees v. Anderson 736 N.W.2d 699 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
Minnesota Ass'n of Professional Employees v. Anderson 736 N.W.2d 699 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
MN. ASSN. OF PROF. EMPLOYEES v. Anderson 736 N.W.2d 699 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
In Re Appeal of Staley 730 N.W.2d 289 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
In Re Appeal of Staley 730 N.W.2d 289 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
Johanns v. Minnesota Mobile Storage, Inc. 720 N.W.2d 5 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
Johanns v. Minnesota Mobile Storage, Inc. 720 N.W.2d 5 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
When interpreting a statute, courts will first examine “whether the language of the statute, on its face, is clear or ambiguous.”
Weston v. McWilliams & Associates, Inc. 716 N.W.2d 634 Minn. 2006
Weston v. McWilliams & Associates, Inc. 716 N.W.2d 634 Minn. 2006
State v. Johnson 713 N.W.2d 64 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
State v. Johnson 713 N.W.2d 64 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
BCBSM, Inc. v. Minnesota Comprehensive Health Ass'n 713 N.W.2d 41 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
BCBSM, Inc. v. Minnesota Comprehensive Health Ass'n 713 N.W.2d 41 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
First National Bank of the North v. Miller Schroeder Financial, Inc. 709 N.W.2d 295 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
First National Bank of the North v. Miller Schroeder Financial, Inc. 709 N.W.2d 295 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
Mumm v. Mornson 708 N.W.2d 475 Minn. 2006
Mumm v. Mornson 708 N.W.2d 475 Minn. 2006

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by