Donaldson had a more far-reaching effect than the statute in the case at bar, the court did not require any specific expression of legislative intent to revive expired claims beyond the plain language of the statute. Based upon our analysis of the case law, we reverse the court of appeals’ decision and decline to view revival of time-barred claims separately from other forms of retroactive application of a statute by requiring additional express language of revival over and above the requirement that intent to revive be clearly and manifestly expressed. See MinmStat. § 645.21. In so holding, however, we do recognize that constitutional or other constraints may limit the legislature’s power to enact retroactive legislation in certain circumstances. See, e.g., Traczyk, 421 N.W.2d at 301 (<HOLDING>). No such constraints restrict the
holding statute of limitations should not be equitably tolled for taxpayer who filed a refund claim after the applicable statute of limitations holding that an accused may not complain if the statute of limitations is extended so long as the period of time originally provided therein had not run at the time of such extension because an accused does not acquire any vested right in a statute of limitations until it has operated to bar the prosecution of the offense with which he has been charged holding that duress toll to statute of limitations under state law had no application to federal rico statute of limitations holding statute that extended statute of limitations for certain criminal sexual conduct could not be applied retroactively to a prosecution commenced after the limitations statute in effect at the time of the alleged offense had expired holding amendment to statute of limitations was a procedural amendment to be applied retroactively in a medical malpractice case