Legal Opinion

Park Nicollet Clinic v. Hamann

Supreme Court of Minnesota

Decided December 7, 2011No. A10-0658PublishedCited by 124 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

GILDEA, Chief Justice.

This case arises from an employment relationship between appellant Park Nicol-let Clinic and respondent Dr. Arlyn Ham-ann. The district court dismissed Ham-ann’s complaint against Park Nicollet, holding that the statute of limitations barred his claims. The court of appeals reversed. Because we conclude that Ham-ann’s claims accrued in April 2005, when Park Nicollet committed the allegedly wrongful conduct at issue, we conclude that the statute of limitations bars Ham-ann’s claims and reverse.

This case comes to us on review from a motion to dismiss, so we rely on…

2Cases cited28 opinions

  1. Timothy Alldread v. City of GrenadaCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1993
  2. Ariadne Financial Services Pty. Ltd. And Memvale Pty. Ltd. v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1998
  3. Wood v. CullenSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1868
  4. Dalton v. Dow Chemical Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1968
  5. Bodah v. Lakeville Motor Express, Inc.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 2003

23 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by124 opinions

  1. Matthew Carlsen v. GameStop, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 2016
  2. Lyon Financial Services, Incorporated, d/b/a U.S. Bancorp Business Equipment Finance Group v. Illinois Paper and Copier CompanySupreme Court of Minnesota · 2014
  3. Laura L. Walsh v. U.S. Bank, N.A.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 2014
  4. Finn v. Alliance BankSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2015
  5. Cpi Card Grp., Inc. v. John Dwyer, Multi Packaging Solutions, Inc.District Court, D. Maine · 2017

119 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API