Legal Opinion
Schmucking v. Mayo
Supreme Court of Minnesota
Decided March 6, 1931No. 28,348PublishedCited by 64 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtWilson, C. J.
Defendants appealed from an order overruling their. demurrer to the-complaint, the trial court having certified the question involved to be important and doubtful.
The.action is for malpractice. The statute of limitations requires such actions to be commenced within two years, L. 1925, p. 102, c. 113, G. S. 1923, § 9193, as amended, 2 Mason, 1927, id.
Plaintiff submitted to a goiter operation and claims a negligent cutting of a laryngeal nerve resulting in the loss of the power of speech. The merits of the claim are not before us. What we are to consider is as to whether plaintiff can get into…
2Cases cited20 opinions
- Bailey v. GloverSupreme Court of the United States · 1875
- Rosenthal v. WalkerSupreme Court of the United States · 1884
- Lewey v. H. C. Fricke Coke Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1895
- Weston v. JonesSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1924
- United States v. Diamond Coal & Coke Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1921
15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by64 opinions
- Jerry W. Canterbury v. William Thornton Spence and the Washington Hospital Center, a Body CorporateCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1972
- Wild v. RarigSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1975
- Pashley v. Pacific Electric Railway Co.California Supreme Court · 1944
- Guy v. SCHULDTIndiana Supreme Court · 1956
- William R. Jewson v. Mayo ClinicCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1982
59 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.