# Doe v. Archdiocese of Saint Paul & Minneapolis

> Supreme Court of Minnesota · July 25, 2012 · 817 N.W.2d 150

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/8246338

## Case

- **Full name:** John DOE 76C v. ARCHDIOCESE OF SAINT PAUL AND MINNEAPOLIS, Diocese of Winona
- **Court:** Supreme Court of Minnesota
- **Decided:** July 25, 2012
- **Citations:** 817 N.W.2d 150; 2012 Minn. LEXIS 307; 2012 WL 3023204
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Meyer
- **Judges:** Anderson, Barry, Consideration, Meyer, Paul, Stras, Took
- **Cited by:** 65 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/8246338

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- stating, in considering whether summary'judgment was improperly granted after excluding certain expert evidence, “[w]e review a district court’s evidentiary rulings ... for an abuse of discretion”
- stating that "[i]t is only when the proponent offers 'novel' 'scientific' evidence that the" general acceptance standard applies
- stating that we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the party against whom summary judgment was granted
- stating that foundational reliability analysis under Rule 702 and Frye–Mack is nearly identical
- stating that “we may affirm a grant of summary judgment if it can be sustained on any grounds”

## Opinion text

MEYER, Justice
(dissenting).
I join in the dissent of Justice Paul H. Anderson.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/8246338. Public record. Not legal advice.