Legal Opinion · Dissent

Jennifer L. DeCook, Respondents/Cross-Appellants v. Olmsted Medical Center, Inc., Brenda J. Hanson, R.N., and Darlene M. Pratt, R.N., Appellants/Cross-Respondents, Kenneth M. Palmer, M.D., Jack F. Perrone, M.D., Kimberly McKeon, M.D., and Ashley Morrow, R.N.

Supreme Court of Minnesota

Decided February 17, 2016No. A14-1180Published

1DissentDietzen, Justice

I join in Part II of the court’s opinion, but disagree with Part III and the related portion of Part IV, and therefore respectfully dissent. In my view, Part III of the *273court’s opinion is contrary to the requirements of Rule 4.05 and the new amendment to Rule 3.01(b) of the Minnesota Rules of Civil Procedure, as well as settled agency law. The above-mentioned rules and this court’s agency precedent establish that a writing either signed by the defendant or. electronically submitted by the defendant is prima facie evidence of authority to accept service of process. Because both were, absent in…

2Cases cited24 opinions

  1. Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1950
  2. Hunt v. Nevada State BankSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1969
  3. Northern States Power Co. v. Lyon Food Products, Inc.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1975
  4. Rogers v. MooreSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1999
  5. United States v. BosurgiDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1972

19 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