D.M.S. v. Barber
Supreme Court of Minnesota
1DissentStringer, Justice
While the ruling of the majority may make sense from a policy standpoint — that a child is conclusively presumed to be incapable of knowing that he or she has been sexually abused, and therefore has an additional six years after becoming an adult to bring a cause of action — that clearly is not the policy of the legislature as reflected in Minn.Stat. § 541.073 (2000). As the responsibility of the judicial branch is to apply the laws adopted by the legislature, and not selectively, I respectfully dissent. A strict statutory analysis, as outlined below, leads to the conclusion that the district…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- W.J.L. v. BuggeSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1998
- Blackowiak v. KempSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1996
- Langer v. NewmannSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1907
- Whitener Ex Rel. Miller v. DahlSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2001
- Bertram v. PooleCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 1999
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.