Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Ceco Steel Products Corp. v. Tapager, 294 N.W. 210.

30 citing documents.

In re the Receivership of United Prairie Bank, Respondent, vs. Molnau Trucking LLC, et al., Defendants, Granite Re, … Minn. 2025
In re the Receivership of United Prairie Bank, Respondent, vs. Molnau Trucking LLC, et al., Defendants, Granite Re, … Minn. 2025
Safety Signs, LLC v. Niles-Wiese Construction Co. 840 N.W.2d 34 Minn. 2013
Safety Signs, LLC v. Niles-Wiese Construction Co. 840 N.W.2d 34 Minn. 2013
Corp. v. Tapager, 208 Minn. 367 , 294 N.W.
Safety Signs, LLC v. Niles-Wiese Construction Co. 820 N.W.2d 854 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
Safety Signs, LLC v. Niles-Wiese Construction Co. 820 N.W.2d 854 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
Corp. v. Tapager, 208 Minn. 367, 372 , 294 N.W.
Maxson Corp. v. Gary King Construction Co. 363 N.W.2d 901 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Maxson Corp. v. Gary King Construction Co. 363 N.W.2d 901 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Ceco Steel Products Corp. v. Tapager, 208 Minn. 367, 370 , 294 N.W.
Spetz & Berg, Inc. v. Luckie Const. Co., Inc. 353 N.W.2d 233 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Spetz & Berg, Inc. v. Luckie Const. Co., Inc. 353 N.W.2d 233 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
In Ceco Steel Products Corp. v. Tapager, 208 Minn. 367 , 294 N.W.
American Druggists Insurance v. Thompson Lumber Co. 349 N.W.2d 569 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
American Druggists Insurance v. Thompson Lumber Co. 349 N.W.2d 569 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
It is designed “to protect laborers and material men who perform labor or furnish material for the execution of a public work to which the mechanic’s lien statute does not apply.” Ceco Steel Products Corp. v. Tapager, 208 Minn. 367, 370 , 294 N.W.
Den Mar Construction Co. v. American Insurance Co. 290 N.W.2d 737 Minn. 1979
Den Mar Construction Co. v. American Insurance Co. 290 N.W.2d 737 Minn. 1979
See, A. J. Chromy Const. Co. v. Com’l Mechanical, Ceco Steel Products Corp. v. Tapager, 208 Minn. 367 , 294 N.W.
A. J. Chromy Construction Co. v. Commercial Mechanical Services, Inc. 260 N.W.2d 579 Minn. 1977
A. J. Chromy Construction Co. v. Commercial Mechanical Services, Inc. 260 N.W.2d 579 Minn. 1977
Considering the second issue raised on this appeal, we commence with the basic proposition that the purpose of the statute requiring performance bonds on public projects is— “ * * * to protect laborers and ma-terialmen who perform labor or furnish material for the execution of a public work to which the mechanic’s lien statute does not apply.” Ceco Steel Products Corp. v. Tapager, 208 Minn. 367, 370 , 294 N.W.
Nelson Roofing & Contracting, Inc. v. C. W. Moore Co. 245 N.W.2d 866 Minn. 1976
Nelson Roofing & Contracting, Inc. v. C. W. Moore Co. 245 N.W.2d 866 Minn. 1976
See, for example, Ceco Steel Products Corp. v. Tapager, 208 Minn. 367, 370
Mineral Resources, Inc. v. Mahnomen Construction Co. 184 N.W.2d 780 Minn. 1971
Mineral Resources, Inc. v. Mahnomen Construction Co. 184 N.W.2d 780 Minn. 1971
As we stated in Ceco Steel Products Corp. v. Tapager, 208 Minn. 367, 371 , , the Standard Oil case is not in point on the issue of whether there can be waiver of the defense of noncompliance with § 574.31 as it now reads: “* * * [U]nder the statute as it then read (prior to the 1929 amendment, L. 1929, c. 369, § 2) claimants were not required to *421 file notice wit
HEALY PLUMB. & HEAT. CO. v. Mpls.-St. Paul San. Dist. 169 N.W.2d 50 Minn. 1969
Healy Plumbing & Heating Co. v. Minneapolis-St. Paul Sanitary District 169 N.W.2d 50 Minn. 1969
HEALY PLUMB. & HEAT. CO. v. Mpls.-St. Paul San. Dist. 169 N.W.2d 50 Minn. 1969
In Ceco Steel Products Corp. v. Tapager, 208 Minn. 367, 370 , 294 N.W.
Healy Plumbing & Heating Co. v. Minneapolis-St. Paul Sanitary District 169 N.W.2d 50 Minn. 1969
we said: “* * * And while the rule of strict construction in favor of the surety does not apply to a surety company * * *, the surety is bound in the manner and to the extent of his obligation and no further; but the bond, being given by virtue of statute, cannot be severed therefrom, and the parties are deemed to have contracted with reference thereto.” In Ceco Steel Products Corp. v. Tapager, 208 Minn. 367, 370 , , we summarized the purpose and scope of the statute in the following language: “
GRAZZINI BROS. & COMPANY v. Builders Clinic, Inc. 160 N.W.2d 259 Minn. 1968
GRAZZINI BROS. & COMPANY v. Builders Clinic, Inc. 160 N.W.2d 259 Minn. 1968
4 5 Ceco Steel Products Corp. v. Tapager, 208 Minn. 367 , .
Elk River Concrete Products Co. v. American Casualty Co. of Reading 129 N.W.2d 309 Minn. 1964
Elk River Concrete Products Co. v. American Casualty Co. of Reading 129 N.W.2d 309 Minn. 1964
574.26 and 574.31; Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 9.03; Ceco Steel Products Corp. v. Tapager, 208 Minn. 367, 371 , , 213: “Plaintiffs, as the beneficiaries of the bond, must bear the burden of showing statutory compliance on their part before they can avail themselves of the benefits thereof.
State, by Burnquist v. Wm. O'Neil Sons Co. 296 N.W. 7 Minn. 1941
State, by Burnquist v. Wm. O'Neil Sons Co. 296 N.W. 7 Minn. 1941
1927, § 9705, relating to public contractors’ bonds, since there the requirement to set the limitation in motion is that there must be *223 “completion of the contract and acceptance?’ of the building or other work by the “proper public authorities.” Cf. Ceco Steel Products Corp. v. Tapager, 208 Minn. 367 , .