Minch Family LLLP v. Estate of Gladys I. Norby, et al., No. 10-2241 (8th Cir. 2011)
Annotate this CaseThe Minch Family sued the Estate of the Norbys in diversity, seeking injunctive relief and damages for flooding of the Minch Family's property, allegedly caused by a field dike built on the Norbys' land. At issue was whether the district court erred in concluding that the Minch Family's claims were time-barred and whether the magistrate judge abused its discretion by denying the Minch Family's motion to amend its complaint to allege a claim for punitive damages and the Minch Family's motion to amend the scheduling order. The court held that the Minch Family had failed to meet its burden of showing that the applicable two year-statute of limitations should be tolled and its claims were untimely. The court held that because it had affirmed the district court's dismissal of the Minch Family's claims as time-barred, the issue of punitive damages was moot. The court further held that because the Minch Family's motion only related to its claim for punitive damages, the court need not address the issue of whether the magistrate judge abused its discretion in denying its motion to amend the court's scheduling order. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court.
Sign up for free summaries delivered directly to your inbox. Learn More › You already receive new opinion summaries from Eighth Circuit US Court of Appeals. Did you know we offer summary newsletters for even more practice areas and jurisdictions? Explore them here.
Court Description: Civil case. In dispute alleging defendant's dike caused flooding on plaintiff's property, the district court did not err in finding that the claims were barred by the two-year statute of limitations contained in Minnesota Statutes Sec. 541.01, neither the fifteen-year period contained in Sec. 541.02 nor the six-year period contained in Sec. 541.05 applied; district court did not err in finding the claims accrued in 2000 when the plaintiffs first experienced flooding from the dike; no exceptions tolled the limitations period; claim that the district court abused its discretion by denying plaintiff's motion to amend the complaint was moot in light of the court's holding on the statute of limitations issue.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.