Tudor v. Industrial Mold & Machine Co.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that a statute of limitations defense is properly characterized as failure to state a claim
• holding that the patient’s “knowledge of the infection” put the patient on notice of a physician’s prior negligence
• holding that because no action was taken between the filing of the answer and the memorandum, the plaintiff could assert no prejudice in considering the memorandum for purposes of whether the defendant had satisfied Rule 8.03
• holding that because no action was taken between the filing of the answer and the memorandum, the plaintiff could assert no prejudice in considering the memorandum for purposes of whether the defendant had satisfied Rule 8.03
• holding that some defenses are not waived by the failure to file a pre-answer motion or to include the defense in an answer, such as the defense of failure to state claim upon which relief can be granted arguing the expiration of the statute of limitations
• considering whether the statute of limitations defense was waived by failure to timely plead specific facts to support the defense

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).