Ames & Fischer Co. v. McDonald
Court of Appeals of Minnesota
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
TOUSSAINT, Judge.
These interlocutory appeals are taken from the district court’s denial of appel*559lants’ motions for summary judgment. The case involves respondents’ claims of professional malpractice against appellants. The district court certified as important and doubtful the legal question of when the statute of limitations begins to run on a professional-malpractice action based on the allegedly negligent failure to make or advise to make an election under section 754 of the Internal Revenue Code (Section 754 election). We conclude that the cause of action accrues, and the statute…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Herrmann v. McMenomy & SeversonSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1999
- Noske v. FriedbergSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2003
- Antone v. MirvissSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2006
- Minnesota Citizens Concerned for Life, Inc. v. KelleySupreme Court of Minnesota · 2005
- Leon Jones Feed & Grain, Inc. v. General Business Services, Inc.Court of Appeals of Georgia · 1985
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by2 opinions
- Vaughn A. Veit v. ProSource Technologies, Inc., and third party v. Carlson Professional Services, Inc., third partyCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 2016
- Eide Bailly LLP v. HumphreysDistrict Court, D. Minnesota · 2024