Legal Opinion

Doe v. Archdiocese of Saint Paul & Minneapolis

Supreme Court of Minnesota

Decided July 25, 2012No. A10-1951PublishedCited by 42 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

ANDERSON, G. BARRY, Justice.

This appeal asks us to determine whether John Doe 76C’s (“Doe”) expert testimony on the theory of repressed and recovered memory offered to prove a disability delaying the accrual of his otherwise untimely negligence and fraud claims is admissible. Doe claims the Archdiocese of Saint Paul and Minneapolis and the Diocese of Winona (“Dioceses”) are liable for his damages resulting from alleged sexual abuse in the early 1980s by a priest under the Dioceses’ control. Doe filed this action on April 24, 2006; because his claims are subject to 6-year statutes of…

2Cases cited42 opinions

  1. Frye v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1923
  2. Fabio v. BellomoSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1993
  3. Commonwealth v. LaniganMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1994
  4. Clark v. ArizonaSupreme Court of the United States · 2006
  5. State v. MacKSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1980

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

3Cited by42 opinions

  1. State of Minnesota v. Amanda Lea PeltierSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2016
  2. McGuire v. BowlinSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2019
  3. McBee v. Team Indus., Inc.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 2019
  4. Poppler v. Wright Hennepin Cooperative Electric Ass'nCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 2013
  5. Michael and Jean Antonello v. Commissioner of Revenue, Relator.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 2016

37 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