Legal Opinion
Kulinski v. Medtronic Bio-Medicus, Inc.
Supreme Court of Minnesota
Decided April 16, 1998No. C5-97-942PublishedCited by 17 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
TOMLJANOVICH, Justice.
On certification from the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals, we are called upon to decide whether:
a plaintiff in the particular circumstances of this case, whose favorable verdict and judgment was vacated on appeal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, [may] bring the same claim under a different legal theory and be saved by the operation of Minnesota’s savings statute[,] [Minn.Stat.] § 541.18, from the bar of the statute of limitations under Minn.Stat. § 541.07(5).
We answer the question in the affirmative.
The relevant facts are undisputed. In 1990, plaintiff…
2Cases cited26 opinions
- United States v. SissonSupreme Court of the United States · 1970
- Gaines v. . City of New YorkNew York Court of Appeals · 1915
- Landro v. Glendenning Motorways, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1980
- James M. Kulinski v. Medtronic Bio-Medicus, Inc., James M. Kulinski v. Medtronic Bio-Medicus, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1994
- Chandler v. DentonSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1987
21 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by17 opinions
- Brown-Wilbert, Inc. v. Copeland Buhl & Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 2007
- State v. LariveeSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2003
- Bode v. Minnesota Department of Natural ResourcesCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 1999
- Seaboard Corp. v. Marsh Inc.Supreme Court of Kansas · 2012
- Gieseke ex rel. Diversified Water Diversion, Inc. v. IDCA, Inc.Court of Appeals of Minnesota · 2013
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.