Jacobs v. Goetowski
Nebraska Supreme Court
1DissentKrivosha, C. J.
I specifically dissent because I believe that the majority has misinterpreted the provisions of Neb. Rev. Stat. § 44-2844 (Reissue 1978). The majority declares that under the provisions of § 44-2844 the running of the statute of limitations is interrupted during the time the claim is before the medical review panel and begins to run again 90 days after the medical review panel issues its opinion. In my view, the plain language of the statute does not support that conclusion. As noted by the majority, the statute provides that “[t]he filing of ... a claim shall toll the... statute of…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Prendergast v. NelsonNebraska Supreme Court · 1977
- Tamminen v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1982
- Phillips v. Sharpstown General Hospital, Texas Court of Appeals, 1st District (Houston)1983
- Baker v. ZirkleSupreme Court of Virginia · 1983
- Cedars Corp. v. SwobodaNebraska Supreme Court · 1981
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.