malpractice action on their behalf. The Court noted that requiring young adults to choose between abandoning medical malpractice claims or suing their parents had a chilling effect on their due process rights, and would necessitate litigation of stale claims because parental negligence could be shown only with by proving that the underlying malpractice action had merit. Id. at 276, 503 N.E.2d at 722. Plaintiffs also cite to Taylor v. General Motors Corp., 717 So.2d 747, 750 (Miss.1998), in which the court upheld dismissal of a case, but noted that as to the minor plaintiff, the dismissal was without prejudice because the statute of limitations on his claim did not begin to run until he reached the age of majority. See also Mosley v. Lankford, 244 Ga. 409, 410-11, 260 S.E.2d 322 (1979) (<HOLDING>). Plaintiffs argue that the same policy
holding appeal from an order dismissing action without prejudice was properly before this court holding that district court erred in dismissing the indictment based on sufficiency of evidence holding that court erred in dismissing minors claims with prejudice absent a hearing holding court erred by disposing of plaintiffs claims on merits after nonsuit filed instead of dismissing case without prejudice holding that the trial court erred by dismissing the plaintiffs defamation claim