Legal Opinion · Dissent

D.M.S. v. Barber

Supreme Court of Minnesota

Decided June 13, 2002No. C8-00-2227Published

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

  1. W.J.L. v. BuggeSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1998
  2. Blackowiak v. KempSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1996
  3. Langer v. NewmannSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1907
  4. Whitener Ex Rel. Miller v. DahlSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2001
  5. Bertram v. PooleCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 1999

2 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