Legal Opinion
Kozisek v. Brigham
Supreme Court of Minnesota
Decided October 29, 1926No. 25,426PublishedCited by 30 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtStone, J.
In this action to recover damages for the alleged malpractice of a surgeon, there was a demurrer to the complaint. It was overruled, but the learned trial judge having certified the questions involved important and doubtful, defendant appeals.
The cause of action, if any, accrued before the passage of chap. 113, p. 102, L. 1925, which amended sec. 9193, G-. S. 1923, relating to limitations of actions in certain cases, so as to read in part as follows:
“The following actions shall be commenced within two years.
1. For libel, slander, assault, battery, false imprisonment, or other tort, resulting…
2Cases cited15 opinions
- Terry v. AndersonSupreme Court of the United States · 1877
- Mulvey v. City of BostonMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1908
- Gilbert v. . AckermanNew York Court of Appeals · 1899
- Merchants National Bank v. BraithwaiteNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1898
- Wrightman v. Boone CountyCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1898
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by30 opinions
- Wichelman v. MessnerSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1957
- Rosefield Packing Co. v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1935
- E. S. Parks Shellac Co. v. JonesMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1928
- MacKu by and Through MacKu v. Drackett Prod. Co.Nebraska Supreme Court · 1984
- Hazlitt v. Fawcett Publications, Inc.District Court, D. Connecticut · 1953
25 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.