Legal Opinion

Paulos v. Johnson

Court of Appeals of Minnesota

Decided July 20, 1999No. C8-99-180PublishedCited by 11 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

SHORT, Judge

This is the third appeal arising from reconstructive ear and nose surgery performed on John Paulos by Harry Johnson, Jr., M.D. On appeal from the trial court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Johnson, Paulos argues the trial court erred in applying the two-year statute of limitations to his fraudulent misrepresentation claim.

FACTS

In January 1990, Paulos sustained injuries to his nose and ear during a physical assault; one month later, Paulos contacted Johnson’s office to inquire about reconstructive surgery. During his telephone call, Paulos asked whether Johnson was…

2Cases cited25 opinions

  1. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, Administratrix of the Estate of CatrettSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
  2. Thiele v. StichSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1988
  3. Fabio v. BellomoSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1993
  4. Hibbing Education Ass'n v. Public Employment Relations BoardSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1985
  5. DLH, Inc. v. RussSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1997

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

3Cited by11 opinions

  1. Howard v. University of Medicine & DentistrySupreme Court of New Jersey · 2002
  2. Kelly v. VinzantSupreme Court of Kansas · 2008
  3. Willis v. BenderCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 2010
  4. Dixon v. Depositors Insurance Co.Court of Appeals of Minnesota · 2000
  5. Brown-Wilbert, Inc. v. Copeland Buhl & Co., P.L.L.P.Court of Appeals of Minnesota · 2006

6 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