Moen v. Mikhail

Supreme Court of Minnesota

Moen v. Mikhail

454 N.W.2d 422, 1990 Minn. LEXIS 108, 1990 WL 45725

CourtSupreme Court of Minnesota

DecidedApril 20, 1990

DocketC3-89-540

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 454 N.W.2d 422 (Moen v. Mikhail) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Minnesota primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Moen v. Mikhail, 454 N.W.2d 422, 1990 Minn. LEXIS 108, 1990 WL 45725 (Mich. 1990).

Pincite

Opinion

SIMONETT, Justice.

We granted the petitions of defendants Salma Mikhail and George E. Reisdorf to review a split decision of the court of appeals, the majority of which concluded that the trial court is vested with discretion to extend the time limitations contained in Minn.Stat. § 145.682 (1988) upon a showing of excusable neglect and that it abused that discretion in determining that plaintiff made no showing of excusable neglect. Moen v. Mikhail, 447 N.W.2d 462 (Minn.App.1989). We reverse.

Here, the trial court improperly first concluded that it was without any discretion to extend the time limitations of section 145.682 in a medical malpractice action. See Stern v. Dill, 442 N.W.2d 322, 324 (Minn.1989). However, our review of the record leads to our conclusion that Moen provided no reasonable excuse for his failure to provide the requisite affidavits in a timely fashion and that, therefore, he would not have been entitled to the requested extension. Summary judgment was properly awarded to the defendants.

Reversed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

SIMONETT, Justice.

We granted the petitions of defendants Salma Mikhail and George E. Reisdorf to review a split decision of the court of appeals, the majority of which concluded that the trial court is vested with discretion to extend the time limitations contained in Minn.Stat. § 145.682 (1988) upon a showing of excusable neglect and that it abused that discretion in determining that plaintiff made no showing of excusable neglect. Moen v. Mikhail, 447 N.W.2d 462 (Minn.App.1989). We reverse.

Here, the trial court improperly first concluded that it was without any discretion to extend the time limitations of section 145.682 in a medical malpractice action. See Stern v. Dill, 442 N.W.2d 322, 324 (Minn.1989). However, our review of the record leads to our conclusion that Moen provided no reasonable excuse for his failure to provide the requisite affidavits in a timely fashion and that, therefore, he would not have been entitled to the requested extension. Summary judgment was properly awarded to the defendants.

Reversed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

454 N.W.2d 422, 1990 Minn. LEXIS 108, 1990 WL 45725, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/moen-v-mikhail-minn-1990.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack