refusing to create a cause of action that had not been recognized by the courts or established by the legislature because “[t]he function of this court is primarily decisional and error correcting, rather than legislative or doctrinal”
How later courts described this case
- refusing to create a cause of action that had not been recognized by the courts or established by the legislature because “[t]he function of this court is primarily decisional and error correcting, rather than legislative or doctrinal”
- explaining, in declining to recognize cause of action for invasion of privacy, that “it is not the function of this court to establish new causes of action”
- stating that it is not the function of the court of appeals to establish new causes of action
- stating that it is not the function of this court to establish new causes of action
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
FORSBERG, Judge
(concurring specially):
I concur with the majority except that I would find that the so-called Patients’ Bill of Rights statute, Minn.Stat. § 144.651 (1988), did not provide for a private cause of action for damages.