Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Haberle v. Buchwald, 480 N.W.2d 351.

25 citing documents.

James L. Lang, et al., Appellants, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
In the district court and again on appeal, Lang argues that the statute of limitations on each claim is tolled because of “the active fraud of [Eliot] that make[s] it difficult or impossible for a party like [Lang] to discover the facts.” “A statute of limitations may be tolled if the cause of action is fraudulently concealed by the defendant.” rev. denied (Minn. Aug.
Michelle A. Krawczyk, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
review denied (Minn. Aug.
Raymond Oswald, et al., Appellants, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
“To establish fraudulent concealment, a plaintiff must prove there was an affirmative act or statement which concealed a potential cause of action, that the statement was known to be false or was made in reckless disregard of its truth or falsity, and that the concealment could not have been discovered b y reasonable diligence.” review denied (Minn. Aug.
James Ariola, as next of kin of, and trustee for, the Estate of Jack Ariola Erenberg, his son, … 889 N.W.2d 340 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
James Ariola, as next of kin of, and trustee for, the Estate of Jack Ariola Erenberg, his son, … 889 N.W.2d 340 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
4 Minnesota Practice, CIVJIG 12.10 (2014); (civil fraud claim may be proved through circumstantial evidence), review denied (Minn. Aug.
Joseph W. Frederick v. Kay L. Wallerich Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Joseph W. Frederick v. Kay L. Wallerich Minn. Ct. App. 2016
cealment occurs in an attorney-client relationship when “there was an affirmative act or statement which concealed a potential cause of action, that the statement was known to be false * * *, and that the concealment could not have been discovered by reasonable diligence.” (citing Herrmann, d at 641; review denied (Minn. Aug.
St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance Co. v. A.P.I., Inc. 738 N.W.2d 401 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance Co. v. A.P.I., Inc. 738 N.W.2d 401 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
(setting out elements to show fraudulent concealment of cause of action), review denied (Minn. Aug.
Williamson v. Prasciunas 661 N.W.2d 645 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
Williamson v. Prasciunas 661 N.W.2d 645 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
review denied (Minn. Aug.
Molloy v. Meier 660 N.W.2d 444 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
Molloy v. Meier 660 N.W.2d 444 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
Doyle v. Kuch 611 N.W.2d 28 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
Doyle v. Kuch 611 N.W.2d 28 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
See, review denied (Minn. Aug.
Ciardelli v. Rindal 565 N.W.2d 465 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
Ciardelli v. Rindal 565 N.W.2d 465 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
revieiv denied (Minn. Aug.
Bigay v. Garvey 562 N.W.2d 695 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
Bigay v. Garvey 562 N.W.2d 695 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
Berres v. Anderson 561 N.W.2d 919 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
Berres v. Anderson 561 N.W.2d 919 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
Fabio, d at 762 ; -55 (Minn.App.1992) (explaining that practical reason for termination of treatment rule is actionable treatment does not ordinarily consist of single act with easily determined precise time of occurrence), review denied (Minn. Aug.
Zagaros v. Erickson 558 N.W.2d 516 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
Zagaros v. Erickson 558 N.W.2d 516 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
Fabio, d at 762 ; -55 (Minn.App.1992) (explaining that a practical reason for the termination of treatment rule is that actionable treatment does not ordinarily consist of a single act with an easily determined, precise time of occurrence), review denied (Minn. Aug.
Bliss v. Stevens 544 N.W.2d 50 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
Bliss v. Stevens 544 N.W.2d 50 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
(quoting Swang v. Hauser, 288 Minn. 306, 309 , -90 (1970)), review denied (Minn. Aug.