Moen v. Mikhail
Can I rely on this case?
Citation treatment has not been reviewed for this case. The notes below come from the citation graph and the Minnesota Revisor's amendment records, not from a review of how later courts treated this decision.
(as of 9/30/2026)
Last cited by a Minnesota appellate court in 2000, among the opinions in this site’s citation index. Amendment history from the Minnesota Revisor of Statutes. A later amendment does not necessarily affect this decision's analysis — check the current statute text.Cites Minnesota statutes amended since this decision
Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
See our Terms of Use before relying on these notes. Report an error
Minnesota statutes cited
Sections of the Minnesota Statutes this opinion cites.
Cases that cite this one
1 later published case cites this decision.
- Tousignant v. St. Louis County (Minn. Ct. App. 1999)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion
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.
Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.