Riemers v. Omdahl
v.
Thomas Omdahl and
Steve Simonson, Defendants and Appellees
Judge Bruce A. Romanick
| Appellant: | Pro se | |
| Appellee: | Camrud, Maddock, Olson & Larson, Ltd. |
Did the Court err in granting Defendants summary judgment on the grounds that Riemers' claims were barred pursuant to the applicable statute of limitations for malpractice:
A. Because Defendants never terminated their representation until 12 February 2003, which makes Riemers suit well within the two year statute of limitations?
B. Because when a plaintiff has knowledge of a claim is a question of fact and rarely appropriate for summary judgment?
C. Because the original suit had been dismissed "without prejudice," and to now apply the statute limitations would be a denial of Riemers' constitutional right to a remedy?
D. Because of the doctrine of "equitable tolling?"
Appellee's Statement of the Issues:
I. Whether the District Court correctly determined that there were no genuine issues of material fact in dispute regarding whether Riemers commenced his suit within the two year statute of limitations.
A. The continuous representation rule does not apply to toll the statute of limitations.
B. There is no question of material fact as to Riemers' discovery of his alleged injury and possibility of a claim to cause question as to when the statute of limitations should have begun to accrue.
C. The doctrine of equitable tolling was not raised by Riemers to the District Court, nor has it been adopted by this Court, nor would it apply should it be adopted.
D. Riemers is precluded from raising any constitutional issues on appeal because he did not raise the arguments to the District Court.
Add Docket 20040099 RSS