Legal Opinion · Concurrence

Broehm v. Mayo Clinic Rochester

Supreme Court of Minnesota

Decided January 20, 2005No. C0-02-959Published

1Concurrence

SPECIAL CONCURRENCE

ANDERSON, Paul H., J.

(concurring specially).

I agree with the majority’s conclusion that this matter should be remanded to the district court for further proceedings, but I write separately because I believe that the majority fails to adequately address the district court’s actions, explain our precedent, and unnecessarily limits Amy Marie Broehm’s ability to present evidence on remand. Moreover, a full understanding of this case and our precedent requires a more complete development of the facts surrounding Broehm’s injury and the procedural history. Accordingly, I begin my…

2Cases cited18 opinions

  1. Martens v. Minnesota Mining & Manufacturing Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 2000
  2. Sorenson v. St. Paul Ramsey Medical CenterSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1990
  3. Hunt v. Nevada State BankSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1969
  4. Christy v. SalitermanSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1970
  5. Cornfeldt v. TongenSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1977

13 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