Minn. Stat. § 541.07

Section 541.07(1) sets a two-year limitation period for assault claims, and an expired period can support denying an amendment to add one.

Ericksen v. Wilson · filed 1963-10-04(1)

As defendant points out, additional justification is furnished for the denial of the amendment because the claim of assault was raised for ... the first time long after the 2-year statute of limitations, Minn. St. 541.07 (1), had run.

Section 541.07(1) sets a two-year limitations period for actions alleging intentional infliction of emotional distress.

Christenson v. Argonaut Insurance Companies · filed 1986-01-21(1)

We conclude that the two-year statute of limitations in Minn. Stat. § 541.07(1) governs actions for the intentional infliction of emotional distress.

Section 541.07(1) sets a two-year limitations period for battery claims; it does not bar claims based on negligence.

Plath v. Plath · filed 1987-04-29(1)

However, if her action is properly characterized as the intentional tort of battery, it is barred by the two-year statute of limitations. Minn.Stat. § 541.07(1) (1982). ... We believe Daryl’s action constitutes negligence, not the intentional tort of battery. ... Appellant’s cause of action is not barred by the statute of limitations applicable to battery.

Section 541.07(1) gives claims for battery and intentional infliction of emotional distress a two-year limitations period; marriage does not toll it.

Rap v. Bjp · filed 1988-08-09(1)

Both battery and intentional infliction of emotional distress are intentional torts governed by the two-year statute of limitations. See Minn.Stat. § 541.07(1) (1986); Christenson v. Argonaut Insurance Co., 380 N.W.2d 515, 518 (Minn.Ct. App.1986). ... We see no basis for creating a judicial exception in this case. We therefore hold that R.A.P.'s intentional tort claims are barred under Minn.Stat. § 541.07 (1986).

Section 541.07(1) applies a two-year limitations period to battery claims.

Plath v. Plath · filed 1988-09-09(1)

Instead, a review of the record leads to the conclusion that the trial court’s finding that Daryl’s actions constituted a battery was supported by the evidence before it and that finding together with the resulting legal determination must be affirmed. We therefore reverse the decision of the court of appeals and reinstate the trial courts’ decision that Maribelle’s action was barred by the two-year limitations period. Minn.Stat. § 541.07(1) (1982).

Section 541.07, subdivision 1, gives battery claims a two-year limitations period that applies to respondeat superior claims based on battery when the sexual-abuse delayed discovery statute does not apply.

M.L. v. Magnuson · filed 1995-05-16subd. 1

Accordingly, the two-year limitation period for battery actions, Minn.Stat. § 541.07 subd. 1, was applicable to M.L.’s respondeat superior claim, ... and that period had expired by the time M.L. commenced his suit against Redeemer.

Section 541.07(1) provides a two-year limitations period for battery and other intentional tort claims, subject to the minority extension in section 541.15(1).

Sarafolean v. Kauffman · filed 1996-05-07(1)

Any intentional tort claims arising from such abuse first became time-barred on March 2, 1983, one year after appellant reached age 18. See Minn.Stat. §§ 541.07(1) (1982) (two-year statute of limitation for battery and other torts), 541.15(1) (1982) (limitations period extended until one year after reaching age 18).

Section 541.07(1) sets a two-year limitations period for defamation and intentional infliction of emotional distress claims.

Wallin v. Minnesota Department of Corrections · filed 1999-08-03(1)

Wallin’s claims for intentional infliction of emotion distress and defamation (except two statements) were barred by the statute of limitations in Minn.Stat. § 541.07(1).

Section 541.07(5) provides a two-year limitations period for contract actions seeking unpaid benefits.

Cavegn v. Twin City Pipe · filed 2000-08-18(5)

In this case, the most analogous Minnesota law is Minn. Stat. § 541.07(5) (Supp. 2000), which provides for a two-year statute of limitations in contract actions for unpaid benefits.

Section 541.07(1)'s two-year battery period does not govern a respondeat superior claim arising from sexual abuse when the delayed discovery statute governs the underlying tort.

D.M.S. v. Barber · filed 2002-06-13(1)

Section 541.07(1), like section 541.073, subdivision 3, does not explicitly refer to respondeat superior claims. ... We therefore hold that respondeat superior claims arising from sexual abuse, like other respondeat superior claims, are governed by the statute of limitations that applies to the underlying tort action. D.M.S.'s respondeat superior claim against PATH arose from acts of sexual abuse committed by Barber and is therefore governed by the delayed discovery statute.

Section 541.07(1) requires a false imprisonment action to be commenced within two years of accrual.

Mellett v. Fairview Health Services · filed 2001-10-18(1)

Based on the record before us, it is clear that Mellett’s false imprisonment claim accrued on January 21, 1997, that the applicable statute of limitations is two years, and that Mellett’s January 22, 1999, delivery of the summons and complaint to the Hennepin County Sheriff for service on Dr. Johnson was not within the two-year limitations period.

Section 541.07(1) gives a person two years to bring an intentional-infliction-of-emotional-distress claim and limits past emotional-distress damages to that period.

Wenigar v. Johnson · filed 2006-04-04(1)

Appellant is correct; there is two-year statute of limitations for commencing an intentional infliction of emotional distress claim.

Section 541.07(1) sets a two-year limitations period for intentional personal injury torts, including assault, battery, and intentional infliction of emotional distress.

Strandlund v. Hawley · filed 2008-07-07(1)

In Minnesota intentional personal injury torts such as assault, battery, or intentional infliction of emotional distress are governed by a two year statute of limitations period, see Minn.Stat. § 541.07(1), while a six year limitations period applies to torts of negligence such as negligent hiring and retention.

Section 541.07(1) gives an intrusion upon seclusion claim a two-year limitations period because it is an intentional tort.

Mallak v. Aitkin County · filed 2014-03-31(1)

Intrusion upon seclusion is an intentional tort with a two-year statute of limitations under Minn.Stat. § 541.07(1).

Section 541.07 requires a battery action to be commenced within two years.

Johnson v. Carroll · filed 2011-10-07

Under Minnesota law, a party must commence an action for battery within two years. Minn. Stat. § 541.07. ... Johnson contends that “service is timely and proper for each appealed claim,” but she has failed to explain how her battery claims against the officers were commenced within the statute of limitations, and we therefore agree that the district court properly dismissed those claims.

Section 541.07 requires libel claims to be commenced within two years.

Shepard v. TheHuffingtonPost.Com, Inc. · filed 2013-06-07

... we agree with the district court that Shepard’s complaint was subject to dismissal as time-barred. See Minn. Stat. § 541.07 (actions for libel shall be commenced within 2 years); ... As to Shepard’s tolling argument based on his military service, we agree with the district court that none of his submissions indicated that he was on active military duty at any relevant time.

Section 541.07(1) sets a two-year limit for common law assault, battery, and intentional or negligent infliction of emotional distress claims, subject to tolling.

Odegard v. Widmark · filed 2025-07-14(1)

Odegard filed the initial Complaint on July 10, 2024 (Doc. No. 1), so any claim for an alleged tort that occurred before July 10, 2022, is time-barred by statute. Minn. Stat. § 541.07(1). ... As a result, Odegard’s claims for common law assault, battery, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and negligent infliction of emotional distress are all time-barred as pled.

Section 541.07(1) subjects false-imprisonment claims to a two-year limitations period.

Jackson v. Ossell · filed 2019-01-24(1)

Aside from the fact that Plaintiff has not alleged facts supporting such claims, any claim for “false kidnapping” or “false imprisonment” fails as a matter of law because there is no apparent authority recognizing kidnapping as a civil tort in Minnesota, and false imprisonment is subject to a two-year statute of limitation, see Minn. Stat. § 541.07(1), and is therefore barred.

Section 541.07(1) sets a two-year limitations period for false-imprisonment claims.

Vogel v. Roy · filed 2019-05-03(1)

Count III, Vogel’s Minnesota false-imprisonment claim, is barred by the two-year statute of limitations for such claims. See Minn. Stat. § 541.07(1); see also Mellett v. Fairview Health Servs., 634 N.W.2d 421, 423 (Minn. 2001) (applying the two-year statute of limitations for false-imprisonment claims).

Section 541.07, subdivision 1 gives a person two years to bring an intentional infliction of emotional distress claim.

Tharp v. CitiMortgage Inc. · filed 2019-09-06(1)

Under Minnesota law, the statute of limitations “for libel, slander, assault, battery, false imprisonment, or other tort resulting in personal injury” is two years. Minn. Stat. § 541.07, subdiv. 1. Although Tharp does not allege when the above conduct occurred, he does not allege any interaction with CitiMortgage or action taken by CitiMortgage after March 2013. As such, Tharp’s IIED claim is barred under the statute of limitations.

Section 541.07(1) gives intentional infliction of emotional distress claims a two-year limitations period.

Wilkes v. Biffs, Inc. · filed 2020-08-11(1)

Wilkes’s intentional infliction of emotional distress (“IIED”) claims are subject to a two- year statute of limitations, meaning claims arising prior to April 7, 2016, are time barred. See Wenigar v. Johnson, 712 N.W.2d 190, 209 (Minn. App. 2006) (concluding that IIED claims are subject to the two-year statute of limitations for “other tort[s] resulting in personal injury” found in Minn. Stat. § 541.07(1)).

Section 541.07(1) sets a two-year limitations period for intentional infliction of emotional distress claims.

Doe v. Anoka County · filed 2025-03-10(1)

(4) And Doe’s claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress is subject to a two-year statute of limitations. See Rassier v. Sanner, 996 F.3d 832, 836 (8th Cir. 2021) (citing Minn. Stat. § 541.07(1)).

Section 541.07(1) gives intentional-infliction-of-emotional-distress claims a two-year limitations period that accrues on the date of the tortious act.

Hoel · filed 2025-10-30(1)

This claim is subject to a two-year statute of limitations. See Rassier v. Sanner, 996 F.3d 832, 836 (8th Cir. 2021) (citing Minn. Stat. § 541.07(1)). ... Because it is barred by the applicable limitations period, this claim will be dismissed.

Section 541.07 supports dismissal with prejudice of Minnesota assault and battery claims barred by its limitation period.

Amos v. Kelly · filed 2024-02-26

8. Plaintiff’s claims for assault and battery under Minnesota law are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE per Minn. Stat. § 541.07; and 9. Plaintiff’s Motion to Stay the Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings (Doc. No. 68) is DENIED.

Section 541.07 sets a two-year limitations period for assault and battery claims.

Hollamon v. County of Wright · filed 2024-08-05

Minnesota’s statute of limitations for assault and battery claims is two years.

Section 541.07(1)’s two-year limitations period does not bar an action timely commenced in Illinois when Illinois limitations law governs after transfer to Minnesota.

Mayo Clinic, Edward S. Judd and D. O. Ferris v. Kaiser · filed 1967-10-12(1)

The sole issues here are the propriety of the transfer of the case under the circumstances and the effect, if any, of the Minnesota statute of limitations, Minn. Stat. § 541.07(1). ... The two-year statute in Minnesota had expired, however, by the time the case was transferred to Minnesota and service of process obtained there. We hold, however, that the Illinois statute of limitations, 83 Ul.Ann. Stat. § 15, governs and it was effectively tolled when the action was commenced in Illinois.

Section 541.07(5)’s two-year limit applies to contractual severance benefits arising from employment.

Kulinski v. Medtronic Bio-Med. · filed 1997-03-13(5)

The district court did not err in applying the two-year limitation under § 541.07(5).

Section 541.07(5) gives both common-law and statutory wage claims a two-year limitation period.

KOHOUT v. Shakopee Foundry Co. · filed 1968-09-20(5)

While we are not entirely free from doubt in the matter, in the absence of some valid reason for treating common-law wage claims differently from those arising under a statute, we hold they are both governed by the 2-year limitation prescribed by Minn. St. 541.07(5).

Section 541.07 requires a libel action to be commenced within two years of its accrual.

Beatty v. Republican Herald Publishing Company · filed 1971-07-30

Additionally, the summary judgment for defendants ordered by the trial court is supportable as to the three alleged libels published prior to September 27, 1966, on the ground that such claims are barred by the statute of limitations, Minn. St. 541.07, which provides an action for libel must be commenced within 2 years of its accrual.

Section 541.07(5) applies a two-year limitation to wage claims based on quantum meruit, including claims for commissions and bonuses.

Roaderick v. Lull Engineering Company, Inc. · filed 1973-06-22(5)

Further, it is our opinion, based upon the broad definition of wages stated in the statute, that claims for wages based on quantum meruit are also controlled by the statute. This action was commenced on June 16, 1969. Therefore, all claims which accrued more than 2 years prior to that date are barred, and the cause of action, if any, must be for the period June 16, 1967, to May 13, 1969, the date of the termination of plaintiff’s employment.

Section 541.07(5) gives a claimant two years to bring a wage claim, including a claim for wages promised under a contract.

Worwa v. SOLZ ENTERPRISES, INC · filed 1976-02-06(5)

There is a dispute as to whether plaintiff’s claim is one for wages or for a general breach of contract. The former has a 2-year statute of limitations under Minn. St. 541.07(5). The latter has a 6-year statute of limitations under Minn. St. 541.05(1). ... The alleged agreement was essentially a wage contract.

Section 541.07(1) sets a two-year limit for personal injury actions against physicians, surgeons, and hospitals, including malpractice claims based on contract or tort.

Harrington v. County of Ramsey · filed 1979-04-20(1)

Minnesota has a 2-year limitation on commencement of actions for personal injury against physicians, surgeons, and hospitals, and all malpractice claims, whether based on contract or tort. Minn.St. 541.-07(1).

Section 541.07(1) gives two years to bring tort claims resulting in personal injury, including misrepresentation and intentional infliction of emotional distress.

Krause v. Farber · filed 1985-12-17(1)

Misrepresentation, as it is pleaded in Krause’s complaint, and intentional infliction of emotional distress are intentional torts resulting in injury to the person. Such claims are subject to the same two-year statute of limitations which governs claims in medical malpractice.

Section 541.07(1) sets a two-year limitations period for a negligence claim against a hospital.

Tackleson v. Abbott-Northwestern Hospital, Inc. · filed 1987-12-01(1)

The trial court correctly ruled the Tacklesons' negligence claim was barred by the two-year statute of limitations set forth in Minn.Stat. § 541.07(1).

Section 541.07(5)'s two-year limit does not apply to an employer's action to recover payments made above wages to which an employee was entitled.

City of Minneapolis v. Smith · filed 1974-05-03(5)

We believe that the 2-year limitation provided in § 541.07(5) does not apply because the present action is not an action by an employee for recovery of wages; rather, it is an action for restitution of money paid, over and above wages, to which employee was in no way entitled.

Section 541.07(5) limits discrimination backpay to the two years before the original charges were filed.

BROTH. OF RY. CLERKS v. State by Balfour · filed 1975-02-28(5)

The union and the railroad, while arguing that no backpay allowance is valid, contend that if one is made, it must be limited to 2 years as provided in Minnesota's statute of limitations for wage claims, Minn.St. 541.07(5). ... Therefore, we hold that the backpay claims of Shelby and Walker must be limited to a period of 2 years prior to the date of the filing of their original charges in 1966.

Section 541.07(1) sets a two-year limitations period for intentional tort claims.

Leaon v. Washington County · filed 1986-12-19(1)

The statute of limitations for intentional torts is 2 years. ... Not until February 26, 1986, long after the statute of limitations had run, did plaintiffs move to amend their complaint to name Allan Palmer as a defendant.

Section 541.07(5) limits employment discrimination backpay to the two years before the employees filed their original charges.

Brotherhood of Railway & Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express & Station Employees, Lodge 364 v. State, Department of Human Rights · filed 1975-02-28(5)

The union and the railroad, while arguing that no backpay allowance is valid, contend that if one is made, it must be limited to 2 years as provided in Minnesota’s statute of limitations for wage claims, Minn. St. 541.07(5). ... We are in accord with the rationale of this result since it represents a balance between the legislation prohibiting discriminatory practices and the legislation limiting the time for making claims for past wages. ... Therefore, we hold that the backpay claims of Shelby and Walker must be limited to a period of 2 years prior to the date of the filing of their original charges in 1966.

Section 541.07(5) gives a wrongful discharge claim based on an oral or de facto employment contract two years from the date of discharge to be filed.

Griffin v. American Motors Sales Corp. · filed 1985-10-04(5)

The fact that some of the terms of the contract are drawn from defendant’s written manuals and policy statements on the strength of Pine River does not alter the conclusion reached in Kohout and progeny that a claim under an oral contract of employment is essentially a wages claim and not a contract action. ... The fact that Pine River subsequently strengthened plaintiff’s claim does not alter the fact that at the time that case was decided he had already allowed the section 541.07(5) limitations period to run. ... The date of discharge triggers the running of the statutory period in a Pine River discharge action.

Section 541.07(5) gives an employee two years to bring a wrongful-discharge claim based on an oral employment contract allegedly modified by an employee manual or handbook.

Portlance v. Golden Valley State Bank · filed 1987-05-08(5)

Therefore, we answer the certified question by holding that the two-year limitation period of Minn.Stat. § 541.07(5) (1986) governs an action for wrongful discharge based on an oral contract of employment allegedly modified by an employees’ manual or handbook.

Section 541.07(5)’s two-year wage-claim limitation does not apply to administrative proceedings because they are not actions under the statute.

In Re Wage & Hour Violations of Holly Inn, Inc. · filed 1986-04-29(5)

This administrative proceeding, however, is not an “action” to which this statute of limitations is applicable. ... Minn.Stat. § 541.07(5) is not applicable to this proceeding.

Section 541.07(5) gives an employee two years to bring a claim that an employer breached its personnel policies.

Rice v. Target Stores, a Division of Dayton Hudson Corp. · filed 1988-01-25(5)

Accordingly, in the case at bar the Court finds plaintiff’s fourth cause of action for breach of personnel policies to be barred by the two-year limitations period of Minn.Stat. § 541.07(5).

Section 541.07(5)’s two-year limit applies to a breach of employment contract claim seeking back pay after a demotion.

Kletschka v. Abbott-Northwestern Hospital, Inc. · filed 1988-01-19(5)

The request for back pay is essentially a claim for wages, which, under Portlance, is subject to the two-year limitation of Minn.Stat. § 541.07(5).

Section 541.07(5) is tolled while a required charge is pending with the Department of Human Rights, preserving the two-year period for recovering back pay.

Sigurdson v. Isanti County · filed 1989-02-22(5)

By holding that the statute of limitations was tolled during the pendency of appellant’s claim, we avoid the injustice of penalizing appellant for administrative delay by shortening the period for which back pay is recoverable.

Section 541.07(5) gives a wage claim a three-year limitation period when the employer intentionally and deliberately breaches an obligation to pay agreed wages.

Levin v. C.O.M.B. Co. · filed 1989-06-16(5)

Whether there has been “willful” nonpayment of wages within the meaning of section 541.07(5) is not in this case amenable to summary disposition. We are of the opinion that in this context “willful” means the intentional and deliberate breach of an obligation to pay agreed upon wages.

Section 541.07(5) sets a two-year limitations period for a lost-wages claim arising from wrongful discharge.

Kyllo v. Farmers Co-Op. Co. of Wanamingo, Minn. · filed 1989-08-16(5)

Count 3 alleges a claim for lost wages under Minn.Stat. § 181.81. The limitations period for such a claim is two years. See Portlance v. Golden Valley State Bank, 405 N.W.2d 240 (Minn.1987) (lost wages claim arising from wrongful discharge is a contract theory with limitations period governed by Minn.Stat. § 541.07(5)). Plaintiff’s complaint was filed after that limitations period had expired, and she has not shown any reason why this claim should not be dismissed. Count 3 should therefore be dismissed.

Section 541.07’s limitations periods for wage recovery and statutory penalties do not apply to retaliatory discharge claims under section 176.82.

McDaniel v. United Hardware Distributing Co. · filed 1991-05-03(2), (5)

Accordingly, the statute of limitations governing actions for lost wages is inapplicable to actions brought under section 176.82. ... Also inapplicable is Minn.Stat. § 541.07(2) (1990), which provides a two year limitation period for actions “[u]pon a statute for a penalty or forfeiture.”

Section 541.07(5) sets a two-year limit for claims seeking damages arising out of an employment relationship.

Stowman v. Carlson Companies, Inc. · filed 1988-10-25(5)

The Minnesota Supreme Court has held that “discharge from employment is actionable, if at all, because it constitutes a breach of the employment contract,” and all damages arising out of the employment relationship are subject to the two-year statute of limitations set forth in Minn. Stat. § 541.07(5) (1986). ... Here summary judgment was properly granted. The statute of limitations bars this action, and Carlson Companies was therefore entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

Section 541.07(5)’s two-year limit applies to a claim for severance benefits arising from employment.

Kulinski v. Medtronic Bio-Medicus, Inc., James M. Kulinski v. Medtronic Bio-Medicus, Inc. · filed 1997-04-16(5)

In light of the consistently broad construction given to § 541.07(5), we affirm the district court in considering Kulinski’s claim as one within the general concept of wages.

Section 541.07(5)’s two-year limit applies to a claim for severance benefits arising from employment.

Kulinski v. Medtronic Bio-Med. · filed 1997-05-02(5)

In light of the consistently broad construction given to § 541.07(5), we affirm the district court in considering Kulinski’s claim as one within the general concept of wages.2 The district court did not err in applying the two-year limitation under § 541.07(5).

Section 541.07(5) applies a two-year limit to claims for pension benefits arising from an employment relationship.

Kiefer v. Ceridian Corp. · filed 1997-06-02(5)

This Court disagrees. ... Minnesota courts have applied the two-year statute broadly and have determined that it applies to "all damages arising out of the employment relationship.” ... These are cases sufficiently similar to the instant case1 to satisfy this Court that Adamson is applicable here.

Section 541.07(5) requires wage claims to be commenced within two years.

Larson v. University Women's Health Pension Plan · filed 1997-06-18(5)

Pursuant to Minn.Stat. § 541.07(5), wage claims must be commenced within two years. Since the last distribution was made to plaintiff on December 20,1993, more that two years prior to the filing of the complaint, this claim is also time-barred.

Section 541.07(5) applies a two-year limitations period to claims for bonuses and other compensation arising from an employment contract.

Botten v. Shorma · filed 2006-03-14(5)

Where the gravamen of the action is a breach of an employment contract, the claim is essentially a claim for wages subject to the two-year statute of limitations period set forth in Minn. Stat. § 541.07(5).

Section 541.07(5) provides a three-year limitations period for wage claims alleging willful nonpayment rather than mistake or inadvertence.

Beatty v. North Central Companies, Inc. · filed 2001-03-14(5)

The Court finds, however, that to the extent that Plaintiffs’ claims are subject to Minn.Stat. § 541.07(5), they are governed by a three-year limitations period, given the nature of Plaintiffs’ allegations. Minn.Stat. § 541.07(5) (providing three-year limitations period “if the nonpayment is willful and not the result of mistake or inadvertence”).

Section 541.07(5) treats restricted stock awarded as employee compensation as wages and starts the limitations period when the employer cancels the stock certificates.

Medtronic, Inc. v. Shope · filed 2001-03-19(5)

The stock certificates issued to defendant constitute wages within the meaning of Minn.Stat. § 541.07(5). When plaintiff canceled those stock certificates, the limitations period for an action to recover them began running.

Section 541.07(5)’s two-year period, when applied to an ERISA benefits claim, may be equitably tolled while the plan processes the claim.

Wolfe v. 3M Short-Term Disability Plan · filed 2001-09-25(5)

The parties agree that the two-year statute of limitations contained in Minn.Stat. § 541.07(5) applies in this case. ... Viewing the facts in the light most favorable to plaintiff, the Court believes that a reasonable jury could find that defendants began processing plaintiffs claim in February 1998, in which case, the tolling of the limitations period during this administrative process (2/9/98 until 10/11/99) would make the filing of plaintiffs action one month later timely.

Section 541.07(5) extends the limitations period for Minnesota overtime claims from two years to three when the employer willfully fails to pay overtime.

In Re Farmers Insurance Exchange Claims Representatives' Overtime Pay Litigation · filed 2003-11-06(5)

If FIE willfully failed to pay overtime, then the limitations periods for the FLSA, Colorado, and Minnesota claims are extended from two years to three. 29 U.S.C. § 255; Colo.Rev.Stat. § 8-M-126; Minn.Stat. § 541.07(5).

Section 541.07(5) extends the limitations period for Minnesota overtime claims from two years to three when the failure to pay overtime is willful.

In Re Farmers Insurance Exchange Claims Representatives' Overtime Pay Litigation · filed 2004-02-26(5)

If FIE willfully failed to pay overtime, then the limitations periods for the FLSA, Colorado, and Minnesota claims are extended from two years to three. 29 U.S.C. § 255; Colo.Rev.Stat. § 8-4-126; Minn.Stat. § 541.07(5).

Section 541.07(5) does not govern an independent contractor’s common-law claim for unpaid commissions when there is no master-and-servant relationship or statutory cause of action.

McClure v. Davis Engineering, L.L.C. · filed 2006-06-13(5)

It is clear that McClure Associates is not seeking to recover wages, as defined in section 541.07(5), because there was never a master-and-servant relationship between Douglas Machine and McClure Associates. And because McClure Associates’ breach-of-contract claim is not a statutory cause of action, we conclude that the statute of limitations in section 541.07(5) is inapplicable here.

Section 541.07(5) requires unpaid wage claims to be brought within two years of accrual, or three years for willful violations.

Roble v. Celestica Corp. · filed 2007-09-06(5)

Both the FLSA and the MFLSA require that a cause of action for unpaid wages be brought within two years of the date the cause of action accrued. 29 U.S.C. § 255(a); Minn. Stat. § 541.07(5). The relevant statutes of limitations are extended to three years for "willful” violations. 29 U.S.C. § 255(a); Minn.Stat. § 541.07(5).

Section 541.07(5) gives unpaid commission claims a two-year limitations period that begins when the commissions are due but unpaid.

Toyota-Lift of Minnesota, Inc. v. American Warehouse Systems, LLC, and third party v. Les Nielsen, third party · filed 2015-07-13(5)

Juelich and Thoemke’s commission claims are governed by a two-year statute of limitations under Minn. Stat. § 541.07(5) (2014). The statute of limitations on a claim for unpaid commissions runs from the date that commissions are due but not paid. ... Juelich and Thoemke’s claims for additional commission payments were timely because they were filed in May and July 2012, within two years of November 2010.

Section 541.07(5) gives a three-year limitations period for breach-of-contract claims based on willful underpayment of compensation.

Darke v. Lurie Besikof Lapidus & Co., LLP · filed 2008-02-07(5)

Darke contends that Lurie Besikof deliberately (i.e., willfully) underpaid her, and the undisputed facts support her contention. (Lurie Besi-kof does not contend, for instance, that it made a mistake in setting Darke’s pay.) Darke’s breach-of-contract claims are therefore subject to a three-year statute of limitations under Minnesota law. Minn. Stat. § 541.07(5). If Lurie Besikof underpaid Darke relative to Stelljes and thereby breached a contract with her, that breach occurred in 2000, and any claim for that breach is untimely.

Section 541.07(5)’s limitations period runs separately for each wage payment due but unpaid.

Hamann v. Park Nicollet Clinic · filed 2010-12-28(5)

Because a new cause of action for the recovery of wages accrued each time a payment was due but not paid by Park Nicollet, the district court erred by granting Park Nicollet’s motion to dismiss the claims as time-barred.

Section 541.07(5)’s two-year period for wage claims began when the employer breached its present obligation under the employment policy; later reduced paychecks did not start new periods.

Park Nicollet Clinic v. Hamann · filed 2011-12-07(5)

For all of these reasons, we hold that Hamann’s cause of action accrued, and the statute of limitations began to run as to his claims, in April 2005. Because Hamann filed this action in October 2009, it is barred by the statute of limitations. See Minn.Stat. § 541.07(5).

Section 541.07(5) provides a three-year limitations period for willful wage-law violations.

Reilly, Michael v. Century Fence Company · filed 2020-03-11(5)

But plaintiffs are correct that Minnesota law imposes a three-year limitations period for willful violations of the wage law, Minn. Stat. § 541.07(5), and the court agrees that it would be premature at this stage to determine whether the alleged violations were willful.

Section 541.07(5) gives a plaintiff two years to bring a wage recovery action, or three years if the nonpayment was willful.

Elsherif v. Mayo Clinic · filed 2021-04-27(5)

Under both statutes, actions for the recovery of wages must be brought within two years unless the nonpayment is willful in which case plaintiff has an additional year. 29 U.S.C. § 255(a); Minn. Stat. § 541.07(5). ... Accordingly, the Court finds that any claim arising during Elsherif’s First Appointment is time barred.

Section 541.07(5) gives claims for payment of wages a two-year limitations period, extended to three years when nonpayment is willful and not the result of mistake or inadvertence.

Placzek v. Mayo Clinic · filed 2021-11-30(5)

The statute of limitations for claims involving the payment of wages is two years, unless “nonpayment is willful and not the result of mistake or inadvertence,” in which case it is three years.

Section 541.07(5)’s limitations period is tolled while the Attorney General litigates a civil investigative demand concerning the same alleged unlawful practice as a subsequent enforcement action.

State of Minnesota Office of the Attorney General v. Madison Equities, Inc. · filed 2026-01-07(5)

The district court determined that the Attorney General’s MFLSA claim against Madison Equities is time-barred under the two-year statute of limitations in Minn. Stat. § 541.07(5) that applies to overtime wage-theft claims. ... Based on the allegations in the complaint and the rule we announce today, we hold that the CID litigation tolled the limitations period in which the Attorney General was required to commence the civil action against Madison Equities.

When section 541.07(5)'s two-year limit for wage claims applies, commencing an action within that period tolls the limit while the action is prosecuted to final judgment.

Sherek v. Independent School District No. 699 · filed 1990-12-31(5)

Assuming, without deciding, that the two-year limitation period of Minn.Stat. § 541.07(5) (1988) for recovery of wages applies to Sherek’s claim, he brought his action within the limitation period. Commencement of an action tolls the statute of limitation during the action’s pendency so long as the action is prosecuted to final judgment.

Section 541.07 gives defamation claims a two-year limitations period that does not wait for a formal retraction of the alleged statements.

Morey v. Independent School District 492 · filed 1969-09-08

Under Minnesota law, the statute of limitations applicable to plaintiff’s defamation claim is two years, Minn.St. 541.07. In the memorandum opposing defendant’s motion to dismiss, plaintiff concedes that the alleged defamation occurred more than two years prior to the filing of the present Complaint. Plaintiff argues, however, that the statute of limitations has not run because the defamation is a continuing defamation, that is, “the applicable statute of limitations would not begin to run until that time when the school district and board members formally retract” the charges. There is no support in reason or authority for this proposition. Accordingly, plaintiff’s claim for damages for defamation must be dismissed.

Section 541.07’s two-year period covers wrongful interference with business relationships when the alleged interference is the same defamation underlying a defamation claim.

Wild v. Rarig · filed 1975-01-10(1)

However, under the facts of this case, we hold that Dr. Wild’s claim of wrongful interference with business relationships by means of defamation is essentially a part of his cause of action for defamation and consequently comes within Minn. St. 541.07, the 2-year statute of limitations.

Section 541.07 requires a claim for mass-produced libel against the original publisher to be brought within two years of the original publication.

Church of Scientology of Minnesota v. Minnesota State Medical Ass'n Foundation · filed 1978-03-17

To avoid that unreasonable result, we hold that § 541.07 requires those who claim damage from mass-produced libel to bring their actions against the original publisher within 2 years of the original publication.

Section 541.07, subdivision 1, sets a two-year limitations period for libel claims; publication within that period can support a claim.

Advanced Training Systems Inc. v. Caswell Equipment Co. · filed 1984-05-25(1)

February 1, 1979, is therefore the accepted cut-off date for the two-year statute of limitations on Taylor’s libel claim. ... The jury apparently concluded that Sente has continuously distributed this book since it was first published, and that at least some copies of the libelous edition went out between February of 1979 and April of 1980. ... When viewed in the light most favorable to the jury’s conclusion, the evidence was sufficient to support the verdict. We therefore reverse the trial court on this issue and order the reinstatement of the jury verdict.

Section 541.07 gives a plaintiff two years to bring a defamation claim, measured from publication rather than discovery.

McGovern v. Cargill, Inc. · filed 1990-12-04

This claim is barred by the applicable two year statute of limitations. Minn.Stat. § 541.07 (1978). Appellant first argues that the cause of action didn’t arise until he became aware of the statements in 1988. In Minnesota, however, the statute of limitations for defamation begins to run on publication, not on discovery.

Section 541.07 sets a two-year limit for defamation claims, including tortious interference claims that are essentially part of a defamation claim.

McGaa v. Glumack · filed 1989-06-20(1)

Where a tortious interference claim is essentially part of a cause of action for defamation, see Minn.Stat. § 541.07, a two-year statute of limitations applies.

Section 541.07(1) sets a two-year limit for commencing a defamation action.

Cole v. Star Tribune · filed 1998-07-14(1)

Second, because Bates was served with this lawsuit two years and two days after the alleged defamatory act, there was no reasonable basis in law or fact to believe that Cole could maintain a defamation action against Bates. See Minn.Stat. § 541.07(1) (1996) (two-year statute of limitations for defamation); Wild v. Rarig, 302 Minn. 419, 447, 234 N.W.2d 775, 793 (1975) (same).

Section 541.07(1)’s two-year limitation applies to tortious interference claims predicated on defamatory activity.

Randy's Sanitation, Inc. v. Wright County, Minn. · filed 1999-09-14(1)

However, where a tortious interference claim is predicated on “defamatory” activity, the two-year statute of limitations applicable to libel or slander claims applies.

Section 541.07 requires a defamation action to be commenced within two years of the plaintiff’s discovery of the allegedly defamatory publication.

Whyte v. American Board of Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation · filed 2005-04-04

A defamation action must be commenced within two years of a plaintiffs discovery of the allegedly defamatory publication. ... Thus, Whyte’s claim based on communications to Willis-Knighton is untimely and therefore fails as a matter of law.

Section 541.07 gives claims for defamation and intentional infliction of emotional distress a two-year limitations period.

Songa v. Sunrise Senior Living Investments Inc. · filed 2014-05-16

In Minnesota, claims for defamation and IIED are subject to a two-year statute of limitations. ... As a result, the defamation and IIED ... claims are time-barred and summary judgment is warranted.

Section 541.07(1) gives a defamation claimant two years from publication to sue; later views of a personnel file do not restart that period.

Issaenko v. University of Minnesota · filed 2014-09-30(1)

Under Minnesota law, a two-year statute of limitations applies to claims for defamation. ... Similarly, the Court concludes here that Minnesota law would adhere to the single publication rule in this instance, and finds that the statute of limitations did not begin to run anew each time someone looked at Issaenko’s personnel file.

Section 541.07(1) sets a two-year limitations period for libel and slander claims, including defamation claims heard in federal court.

Ernst v. Hinchliff · filed 2015-09-08(1)

MinmStat. § 541.07(1) sets a two-year statute of limitations on actions for “libel and slander.”

Section 541.07 requires a defamation claim to be commenced within two years of accrual.

McDonald v. Allina Health System d/b/a United Hospital · filed 2015-10-26

A claim of defamation must be asserted within two years of its accrual. See Minn. Stat. § 541.07 (2014) (providing that actions for libel and slander “shall be commenced within two years”).

Section 541.07(1) gives defamation claims a two-year limitations period that also applies to tortious interference with business relationships when the interference is by means of defamation.

Willis Electric Co., Ltd. v. Polygroup Limited · filed 2020-02-03(1)

Under Minnesota law, defamation claims are subject to a two-year statute of limitations. Minn. Stat. § 541.07(1). This limitations period also applies to tortious interference with business relationships when the alleged interference was “by means of defamation.”

Section 541.07(1) gives a plaintiff two years to bring a defamation claim, beginning when the statement is published to a third party.

Kasso v. Police Officers' Federation of Minneapolis · filed 2024-09-24(1)

The Original Complaint in this case was filed in 2023, and by then the statute of limitations had already run. Ms. Kasso’s defamation claim is therefore dismissed.

Section 541.07(1) imposes a two-year limit on slander and defamation claims against police officers.

Semler v. Klang · filed 2007-12-18(1)

The three-year limitation of Minn.Stat. § 541.06 (2004) does not apply to police officers and appellant’s claims are barred by the two-year limitation of Minn.Stat. § 541.07(1).

Section 541.07 bars an untimely commercial disparagement claim.

Advanced Technology Corp. v. Instron, Inc. · filed 2013-02-26

This court need not decide whether Massachusetts, Minnesota, or Tennessee law applies to ATC’s commercial disparagement claim against MTS. This claim is time-barred in all of these states.

Section 541.07(1) sets a two-year filing deadline for defamation and intentional infliction of emotional distress claims.

Rassier v. Sanner · filed 2020-03-06(1)

In addition, Rassier’s state-law claims—IIED and defamation—are governed by a two-year statute of limitations.

Section 541.07(5) allows three years to bring an MFLSA nonpayment claim if the nonpayment was willful and not the result of mistake or inadvertence.

Wang v. Jessy Corporation · filed 2020-07-02(5)

Minn. Stat. § 541.07(5) (noting the statute of limitations under MFLSA ... may be three years if “the nonpayment is willful and not the result of mistake or inadvertence”). ... Because a material dispute of fact remains as to whether Lin acted willfully, the Court will deny Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment to the extent it relies on the statute of limitations to bar recovery.

Section 541.07(1) sets a two-year limitations period for defamation, conspiracy to defame, and intentional infliction of emotional distress claims.

Fredin v. Kreil · filed 2020-12-18(1)

Under Minnesota law, the statute of limitations applicable to Fredin’s defamation, conspiracy to defame, and intentional infliction of emotional distress claims is two years. ... Fredin’s claims related to Kreil’s Facebook post are therefore time-barred.

Section 541.07(1) gives defamation and intentional infliction of emotional distress claims a two-year limitations period.

Rassier v. Sanner · filed 2021-04-30(1)

Their state law claims of defamation and intentional infliction of emotional distress have a two-year statute of limitations under Minnesota law. Minn. Stat. § 541.07(1).

Section 541.07(1) sets a two-year limitations period for assault, battery, and intentional infliction of emotional distress claims.

Blackwell v. Washington County, Minnesota · filed 2024-12-02(1)

Claims for intentional torts of assault, battery, and intentional infliction of emotional distress have a two-year statute of limitations. Minn. Stat. § 541.07(1); Strandlund v. Hawley, 532 F.3d 741, 746 (8th Cir. 2008). ... Therefore, all state law claims are outside the statute of limitations and barred.

Section 541.07(1) bars medical malpractice actions commenced more than two years after the physician’s treatment for the condition ceases.

Rogers v. Furlow · filed 1989-10-06(1)

Minnesota Statute section 541.07(1) bars medical malpractice actions that are not commenced within two years from the date on which the physician’s treatment for a particular condition ceases.

Section 541.07(1) gives medical malpractice claims two years from the end of treatment; discovering a retained foreign object later does not delay the deadline, and its continued presence is not a continuing tort.

Francis v. Hansing · filed 1989-12-26(1)

We hold that Minnesota case law does not permit the application of the discovery rule to a medical malpractice case. Likewise, we do not find any precedent in Minnesota law that would permit this court to hold that Dr. McKenzie's failure to remove the first IUD constituted a continuing tort.

Section 541.07(1) requires medical malpractice actions to be filed within two years of accrual, which generally occurs when treatment for the condition ceases.

Zagaros v. Erickson · filed 1997-02-04(1)

An action for medical malpractice is barred when not commenced within two years of the date on which the cause of action accrues. Minn.Stat. § 541.01 (1996); Minn. Stat. § 541.07(1) (1996). The cause of action generally accrues when treatment for a particular condition ceases.

Section 541.07(1)’s two-year limit for medical malpractice claims begins when treatment ends, rather than when the injury is discovered.

Willette v. the Mayo Foundation · filed 1990-07-03(1)

We therefore conclude the legislature has presumptively adopted the termination of treatment rule for determining the time when a medical malpractice claim accrues and the two-year limitation period begins to run.

Section 541.07(1) bars medical malpractice actions filed more than two years after accrual; later examinations do not extend the period unless they are part of a continuing course of treatment.

Fabio v. Bellomo · filed 1993-08-20(1)

An action for medical malpractice is barred if not commenced within two years of the date on which the cause of action accrued. Minn.Stat. § 541.07(1). ... We therefore hold that the trial court was correct to rule that Dr. Bellomo's examinations of Fabio's breast that occurred between 1982 and 1984 are barred by the statute of limitations, because these examinations were not part of a continuing course of treatment.

Section 541.07(1) bars a medical malpractice claim brought more than two years after the patient sustains damage from a single negligent act or omission.

Offerdahl v. University of Minnesota Hospitals & Clinics · filed 1988-07-22(1)

Offerdahl sustained damage, and was aware of such damage, by January 28, 1979, when she was hospitalized for PID and the Copper-7 IUD was removed. Because Offerdahl's cause of action accrued on January 28, 1979, and this action was not commenced until June 19, 1984, her claim is barred by the two-year statute of limitations set forth in Minn.Stat. § 541.07(1).

Section 541.07(1) provides a two-year limitations period, but fraudulent concealment can prevent that period from running.

Larson v. Dunn · filed 1990-08-31(1)

Further, because "fraudulent concealment of th[e] cause of action will prevent the running of the statute of limitations," Kopperud v. Agers, 312 N.W.2d 443, 446 (Minn.1981); see also Minn.Stat. § 541.05, subd. 1(6) (1988) (fraud action does not accrue until discovered), the statute of limitations had not run when suit was filed January 4, 1989. See Minn.Stat. § 541.07(1) (1988) (two year limitation period).

Section 541.07(1) gives veterinary malpractice claims a two-year limit. The termination-of-treatment rule applies, and treatment of a dairy herd does not end merely because treatment of one infected animal ends.

Berres v. Anderson · filed 1997-04-15(1)

An action for veterinary medical malpractice is barred when not commenced within two years after the date on which the cause of action accrues. ... Therefore, we conclude that the termination of treatment rule applies in veterinary medical malpractice eases. ... The “patient” is the entire herd and treatment of the dairy herd does not cease when treatment of an infected animal ceases.

Section 541.07(1) limits the remedy but does not create a vested right when its limitation period expires.

K.E. v. Hoffman · filed 1990-03-13(1)

Moreover, section 541.07(1) is distinguishable from a second class of statutes which creates both a cause of action and a limitation period within which the action must be brought. Instead, in this case, only the appellant’s remedy against respondents, and not the parties’ respective rights, was affected when the limitations period expired. A limitations statute which applies merely to a party’s remedy does not create a vested right in respondents.

Section 541.07(5) does not supply the limitations period for Rule 10b-5 claims because they arise from an implied, compensatory cause of action.

Klapmeier v. Peat, Marwick, Mitchell & Co. · filed 1973-09-06(5)

This court is forced to conclude that Minn.Stat. § 541.07(5) cannot control a Rule 10b-5 action notwithstanding that it is a short statute of limitations and the Vanderboom court indicated a preference for a short statute.

Section 541.07(5) does not supply the limitations period for Rule 10b-5 securities fraud claims because it does not sufficiently resemble that rule.

Bailey v. Piper, Jaffray & Hopwood, Inc. · filed 1976-06-03(5)

§ 541.07(5) is a general catch-all limitations provision and does not bear a sufficient resemblance to Rule 10b-5 to justify its application.

Section 541.07(1) supplies a two-year limitations period for Minnesota § 1983 claims, applied prospectively under this decision.

Cook v. City of Minneapolis · filed 1985-08-16(1)

Accordingly, for § 1983 claims brought in Minnesota, this court will borrow the two-year limitations period of Minn.Stat. § 541.07(1).

Section 541.07(1) supplies a two-year limitations period for § 1983 claims filed in Minnesota federal district court.

Chris N. v. Burnsville, Minn. · filed 1986-05-13(1)

Accordingly, in this district it is settled law that the two-year limitations period of Minn.Stat. § 541.07(1) applies to plaintiff’s section 1983 claim.

Section 541.07(1) supplies the two-year limitations period for Minnesota § 1983 actions, but that period does not retroactively bar a suit filed in reasonable reliance on prior law.

James W. v. Dakota County · filed 1986-05-29(1)

Minn.Stat. § 541.05, subd. 1(5) specifies a six-year limitations period and Minn.Stat. § 541.07(1) specifies a two-year limitations period. ... Accordingly, it is settled law in this district that the statute of limitations in a section 1983 action is two years. ... Retroactive application of Wilson where plaintiff relied on clear past precedent in delaying suit would be manifestly unjust.

Section 541.07(1) provides a two-year period for intentional tort actions, but its period does not apply to § 1983 claims.

Berg v. Groschen · filed 1989-03-14(1)

Minn.Stat. § 541.07(1) (1986), applicable to intentional tort actions, is a two-year statute for “libel, slander, assault, battery, false imprisonment, or other tort, resulting in personal injury.” ... Under the Supreme Court’s directive, we designate the six-year limitations period in Minn.Stat. § 541.05, subd. 1(5) as the applicable statutory limitations period for section 1983 claims.

Section 541.07(1) bars defamation and intentional-infliction-of-emotional-distress claims commenced more than two years after they accrue unless the limitations period is tolled.

Larson v. State · filed 1990-02-06(1)

Appellant’s tort claims are clearly barred by the statute of limitations-in Minn.Stat. § 541.07(1).

Section 541.07(1)’s two-year limitations period does not govern § 1983 claims; Minnesota’s six-year residual personal injury period applies.

Ben Oehrleins & Sons & Daughter, Inc. v. Hennepin County · filed 1994-11-01(1)

The County contends that plaintiffs’ section 1983 claims are subject to the two year limitations period in Minnesota Statute § 541.07(1). That provision governs the limitations period for intentional torts and medical malpractice actions. ... The court agrees that the six year limitations period found in Minnesota’s residual statute for personal injury actions applies to section 1983 claims.

Section 541.07(5)'s two-year period for wage claims is the most analogous Minnesota limitations period for employees' ERISA benefit claims.

Harold E. ADAMSON, Et Al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. ARMCO, INC., Defendant-Appellee · filed 1995-03-24(5)

For these reasons, we agree with the district court that § 541.07(5) is the most analogous Minnesota statute of limitations for appellants’ claims under § 502(a)(1)(B).

Section 541.07(1)’s two-year limitations period does not govern § 1982 claims in Minnesota; the six-year personal injury period applies.

Sternjohn v. Kreisler · filed 2003-01-06(1)

The Court holds that the six year statute of limitations under the personal injury statute, Minn.Stat. § 541.05, subd. 1(5) applies to § 1982 claims in the District of Minnesota, and that Solar Defendants incorrectly relied on the Cook decision in evaluating the applicable statute of limitations periods. ... There the court rejected the two-year limitations period of Minn.Stat. § 541.07(1) as decided in Cook. ... Based on the foregoing, the Court determines that the six-year statute of limitations applies to § 1982 claims in the District of Minnesota.

Section 541.07(1)’s two-year limitations period does not govern § 1981 claims; the six-year period in § 541.05 applies.

Woodson v. International Brotherhood of Electric Workers Local 292 · filed 1997-08-15(1)

In considering this issue, however, the court determines that the courts in Rice and Rhodes were applying the two-year statute of limitations to the plaintiffs’ 1981 claims because that was the limitation period used in 1983 actions at the time of those decisions. Owens and subsequent court decisions support the position that this court should apply the six-year statute of limitations period to the section 1981 claim.

Section 541.07(5)’s two-year limit on wage-recovery actions does not bind the United States when it sues to enforce federal law.

Holstad v. United States Department of Labor · filed 2021-07-30(5)

The ARB correctly declined to apply the statute of limitations periods under Minn. Stat. § 541.07(5) and 29 U.S.C. § 255. First, the Minnesota statute cannot bar this action because, when the United States sues to enforce federal law, state statute of limitations periods do not bind it.

Section 541.07(6) allows two years to sue for damage caused by a city’s road changes, beginning when the plaintiff first suffers damage.

Capitol Supply Co. v. City of St. Paul · filed 1982-03-05(6)

With respect to the first possible cause of action relating to the alleged negligent change in the grade of an established road, Minn.Stat. § 541.07(6) (1980) provides a 2-year limitation for the commencement of an action for damages caused by the City’s road changes. The statutory time period begins to run from the date that the plaintiff first suffers damage and not from the date when the last known negligent act occurs.

Section 541.07(8)’s two-year limitations period applies to claims for negligent application of a herbicide.

Grossman v. Aerial Farm Service, Inc. · filed 1986-03-25(8)

A reasonable interpretation is that the legislature did not intend to exclude from the two year limitations period set forth at Minn.Stat. § 541.07(8) actions brought for negligent application of a herbicide.

Section 541.07(8) applies its two-year limit to property damage from negligent herbicide application, including a trespass claim with no independent injury.

Grossman v. Aerial Farm Services, Inc. · filed 1987-03-10(8)

Damage caused by negligent application of herbicide is specifically addressed in § 541.07(8). That specific statute controls over the more general six year trespass statute.

Section 541.07(8)’s two-year limit for pesticide damage claims does not cover persons who contract for pesticide services.

Radloff v. First American National Bank of St. Cloud, N.A. · filed 1990-05-15(8)

We hold, however, that the two year statute of limitations prescribed in section 541.07(8) is inapplicable, as it does not cover persons who contract for pesticide services.

Section 541.07(7) sets a two-year limit for tort claims against pesticide applicators, regardless of the type of claim brought.

Johnson v. Paynesville Farmers Union Cooperative Oil Co. · filed 2012-08-01(7)

And in a case alleging damages caused by pesticides, like this case, the applicable statute of limitations is 2 years regardless of the type of claim the plaintiff brings. Minn.Stat. § 541.07(7) (2010) (creating a 2-year statute of limitations for all tort claims against pesticide applicators).

Section 541.07 requires a medical malpractice action to be commenced within two years after treatment ends.

St. Aubin v. Burke · filed 1989-01-17

Here, it is undisputed that the last date of treatment by Ellis was March 19, 1980. Since suit was commenced on November 23, 1982, clearly this falls outside of the limitation set forth in the statute and summary judgment was properly granted as a matter of law.

Section 541.07(1) requires medical malpractice actions to be commenced within two years.

Johnson v. Husebye · filed 1991-05-21(1)

The statutory limitation period for a medical malpractice claim is two years. Minn.Stat. § 541.07(1) (1988). ... Accordingly, Johnson’s action is barred by the two-year statute of limitations.