Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Aronovitch v. Levy, 56 N.W.2d 570.

101 citing documents.

Wheeler v. City of Wayzata 533 N.W.2d 405 Minn. 1995
Wheeler v. City of Wayzata 533 N.W.2d 405 Minn. 1995
Aronovitch v. Levy, 238 Minn. 237, 242-43
Gadey v. City of Minneapolis 517 N.W.2d 344 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
Gadey v. City of Minneapolis 517 N.W.2d 344 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
Laches is an equitable doctrine that prevents those parties who have not been “diligent in asserting a known right from recovering at the expense of one who has been prejudiced by the delay.” Aronovitch v. Levy, 238 Minn. 237, 242
In Re the Marriage of Opp 516 N.W.2d 193 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
In Re the Marriage of Opp 516 N.W.2d 193 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
(quoting Aronovitch v. Levy, 238 Minn. 237, 242 , ).
Byrd v. Independent School District No. 194 495 N.W.2d 226 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
Byrd v. Independent School District No. 194 495 N.W.2d 226 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
We agree that this extraordinary cooperation “casts a cloud over the integrity of the process used in awarding the contract.” Ill The purpose of laches is “to prevent one who has not been diligent in asserting a known right from recovering at the expense of one who has been prejudiced by the delay.” (quoting Aronovitch v. Levy, 238 Minn. 237, 242 , ).
Res Investment Co. v. County of Dakota 494 N.W.2d 64 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
Res Investment Co. v. County of Dakota 494 N.W.2d 64 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
Aronovitch v. Levy, 238 Minn. 237, 242
Weed v. Commissioner of Revenue 489 N.W.2d 525 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
Weed v. Commissioner of Revenue 489 N.W.2d 525 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
Id.; Aronovitch v. Levy, 238 Minn. 237, 241
Green Electric System, Inc. v. Metropolitan Airports Commission 486 N.W.2d 819 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
Searles v. Searles 412 N.W.2d 11 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Searles v. Searles 412 N.W.2d 11 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
See Aronovitch v. Levy, 238 Minn. 237, 242
Bahr v. City of Litchfield 404 N.W.2d 381 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Bahr v. City of Litchfield 404 N.W.2d 381 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Aronovitch v. Levy, 238 Minn. 237, 242
Shortridge v. Daubney 400 N.W.2d 841 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Shortridge v. Daubney 400 N.W.2d 841 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Aronovitch v. Levy, 238 Minn. 237, 242
Dolly v. Nichols 386 N.W.2d 261 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Dolly v. Nichols 386 N.W.2d 261 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Aronovitch v. Levy, 238 Minn. 237, 242 , (generally, where “strictly legal rights are in controversy” and the action is governed by the statute of limitations, the doctrine of laches has no application).
Bongard v. Bongard 380 N.W.2d 592 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Bongard v. Bongard 380 N.W.2d 592 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Aronovitch v. Levy, 238 Minn. 237, 242
Petersen v. Dekalb Pfizer Genetics 354 N.W.2d 887 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Petersen v. Dekalb Pfizer Genetics 354 N.W.2d 887 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
238, 238 (1890), quoted with approval in Aronovitch v. Levy, 238 Minn. 237, 242
Klapmeier v. Town of Center of Crow Wing County 346 N.W.2d 133 Minn. 1984
Klapmeier v. Town of Center of Crow Wing County 346 N.W.2d 133 Minn. 1984
The purpose of laches is “to prevent one who has not been diligent in asserting a known right from recovering at the expense of one who has been prejudiced by the delay.” Aronovitch v. Levy, 238 Minn. 237, 242
Barilla v. Clapshaw 237 N.W.2d 830 Minn. 1976
Barilla v. Clapshaw 237 N.W.2d 830 Minn. 1976
Co. 259 Minn. 341 , Aronovitch v. Levy, 238 Minn. 237 , Larson v. Stowe, 228 Minn. 216 , Larson v. Sventek, 211 Minn. 385 , Mix v. Downing, 176 Minn. 156 , Nygard v. Minneapolis St.
Jeffries v. Gillitzer 225 N.W.2d 17 Minn. 1975
Jeffries v. Gillitzer 225 N.W.2d 17 Minn. 1975
Schmidt v. Smith, supra; Hanson v. Northern States Power Co. 198 Minn. 24 , Aronovitch v. Levy, 238 Minn. 237 , , 34 A. L. R. 2d 1306 (1953).
Schmidt v. Smith 216 N.W.2d 669 Minn. 1974
Schmidt v. Smith 216 N.W.2d 669 Minn. 1974
Hanson v. Northern States Power Co. 198 Minn. 24 , .” In Aronovitch v. Levy, 238 Minn. 237, 246 , , 34 A. L. R. 2d 1306, 1313 (1953), this court summarized the law as follows: “We perceive the rule in this state to be that, where the parties contract for a release of all claims for known injuries, the release is a bar to recovery for unknown consequences of known injuries but is not a b
Simons v. Schiek's, Inc. 145 N.W.2d 548 Minn. 1966
Simons v. Schiek's, Inc. 145 N.W.2d 548 Minn. 1966
In Aronovitch v. Levy, 238 Minn. 237 , 56 N. W. (2d) 570 , 34 A. L. R. (2d) 1306, this court stated that where the parties contracted for a release of all claims for known injuries, the release is a bar to recovery for unknown consequences of known injuries, but is not a bar to recovery for unknown injuries not within the contemplation of the parties at
Newman v. Fjelstad 137 N.W.2d 181 Minn. 1965
Newman v. Fjelstad 137 N.W.2d 181 Minn. 1965
See, Aronovitch v. Levy, 238 Minn. 237 , 56 N. W. (2d) 570 , 34 A.L.R.
Watkins v. Lorenz 119 N.W.2d 482 Minn. 1963
Watkins v. Lorenz 119 N.W.2d 482 Minn. 1963
See, also, Aronovitch v. Levy, 238 Minn. 237 , 56 N. W. (2d) 570 , 34 A. L. R. (2d) 1306; Anchor Cas.
Dansby v. Buck 373 P.2d 1 Ariz. 1962
Schoenfeld v. Buker 114 N.W.2d 560 Minn. 1962
Schoenfeld v. Buker 114 N.W.2d 560 Minn. 1962
Co. 240 Minn. 547 , 62 N. W. (2d) 374 ; and Aronovitch v. Levy, 238 Minn. 237 , 56 N. W. (2d) 570 , 34 A. L. R. (2d) 1306.
Doud v. Minneapolis Street Railway Co. 107 N.W.2d 521 Minn. 1961
Doud v. Minneapolis Street Railway Co. 107 N.W.2d 521 Minn. 1961
In Aronovitch v. Levy, 238 Minn. 237, 246 , 56 N. W. (2d) 570, 576 , 34 A. L. R. (2d) 1306, we said: “* * * Further that, even though a release expressly covers unknown injuries, it is not a bar to an action for such unknown injuries if it can be shown that such unknown injuries were not within the contemplation of the parties when the settlement was agr
Couillard v. Charles T. Miller Hospital, Inc. 92 N.W.2d 96 Minn. 1958
Couillard v. Charles T. Miller Hospital, Inc. 92 N.W.2d 96 Minn. 1958
’ In Aronovitch v. Levy, 238 Minn. 237, 246 , 56 N. W. (2d) 570, 576 , 34 A. L. R. (2d) 1306, 1313, we held under the circumstances in that case that the release was not a bar to recovery “for unknown injuries not within the contemplation of the parties at the time of contracting for such release” and that whether the parties intended the release to cover
Boxell v. Continental Casualty Co. 82 N.W.2d 223 Minn. 1957
Boxell v. Continental Casualty Co. 82 N.W.2d 223 Minn. 1957
Under our decision in Aronovitch v. Levy, 238 Minn. 237 , 56 N. W. (2d) 570 , 34 A. L. R. (2d) 1306, the release would, therefore, not constitute a bar to an action to recover benefits for a period of disability caused by tuberculosis.
Hanson v. Fergus Falls National Bank & Trust Co. 65 N.W.2d 857 Minn. 1954
Guptill v. Conlon Construction Co. 58 N.W.2d 264 Minn. 1953