Cited by

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

101 citing documents.

The Bank of New York Mellon fka The Bank of New York, as Trustee for the certificate holders … Minn. Ct. App. 2026
The Bank of New York Mellon fka The Bank of New York, as Trustee for the certificate holders … Minn. Ct. App. 2026
In re the Marriage of: Todd Charles Bork v. Carolyn Mitsu Bork Minn. Ct. App. 2026
In re the Marriage of: Todd Charles Bork v. Carolyn Mitsu Bork Minn. Ct. App. 2026
Minnesota Voters Alliance, et al., Petitioners, Republican Party of Minnesota, Petitioner, vs. Timothy Walz, in his ... Minn. 2025
Minnesota Voters Alliance, et al., Petitioners, Republican Party of Minnesota, Petitioner, vs. Timothy Walz, in his ... Minn. 2025
“Laches is an equitable doctrine applied 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.’ ” ().
Continental Clay Company Inc, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2024
The applicable rule of law is that “laches has no application where the main action is brought within the time prescribed by our statute of limitations.” (emphasis added); see also Hanson v. Northern States Power Co., 268 N.W.
Peter K Butler v. Shari Moore Minn. Ct. App. 2024
Peter K Butler v. Shari Moore Minn. Ct. App. 2024
“Laches is an equitable doctrine applied 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.’” ().
In the Matter of the Petition of: Minn. Ct. App. 2023
“Laches is an equitable doctrine applied 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.’” ().
Kevin Bruntlett, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
The doctrine arises from equity and works 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.”
Original Jurisdiction Per Curiam Minn. 2020
’ ” (quoting Aronovitch v. Levy , d 570, 574 (Minn. 1953)) .
All Finish Concrete, Inc. v. Erickson 899 N.W.2d 557 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
All Finish Concrete, Inc. v. Erickson 899 N.W.2d 557 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Aronovitch v. Levy, 238 Minn. 237, 242
Waters Edge Community Association, Inc., et al., Appellants, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Co., 259 Minn. 341, 347, Aronovitch v. Levy, 238 Minn. 237, 246
Monaghen v. Simon 888 N.W.2d 324 Minn. 2016
Monaghen v. Simon 888 N.W.2d 324 Minn. 2016
Laches is an equitable doctrine applied 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 , d *329 570, 574 (1953)).
In RE: The APPEAL FROM the FINAL ORDER OF the BOARD OF MANAGERS OF the BOIS DE SIOUX … 889 N.W.2d 575 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
In RE: The APPEAL FROM the FINAL ORDER OF the BOARD OF MANAGERS OF the BOIS DE SIOUX … 889 N.W.2d 575 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
v. P.R., Aronovitch v. Levy, 238 Minn. 237, 241
Judy Brown v. Judith M. Lee 859 N.W.2d 836 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Judy Brown v. Judith M. Lee 859 N.W.2d 836 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
“[T]he rule prohibiting the admission of parol evidence to vary the terms of a written contract does not prevent proof of fraud or mistake.” Aronovitch v. Levy, 238 Minn. 237, 246
In the Matter of the Petition of Melvin J. Cummins for an Order Determining Boundary Lines. Minn. Ct. App. 2015
In the Matter of the Petition of Melvin J. Cummins for an Order Determining Boundary Lines. Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Aronovitch v. Levy, 238 Minn. 237, 242
White v. City of Elk River 840 N.W.2d 43 Minn. 2013
White v. City of Elk River 840 N.W.2d 43 Minn. 2013
See Onvoy, Inc. v. ALLETE, Inc., -18 (Minn.2007) (explaining that one requirement for a justiciable declaratory judgment action is that it "involves a genuine conflict in tangible interests between parties with adverse interests”); Aronovitch v. Levy, 238 Minn. 237, 242 , (stating that "laches is an equitable doctrine intended 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”).
Martin v. Dicklich 823 N.W.2d 336 Minn. 2012
Martin v. Dicklich 823 N.W.2d 336 Minn. 2012
“Laches is an equitable doctrine applied 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 , ).
Clark v. Reddick 791 N.W.2d 292 Minn. 2010
Clark v. Reddick 791 N.W.2d 292 Minn. 2010
Laches is an equitable doctrine which applies 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 , ).
Hebert v. CITY OF FIFTY LAKES 784 N.W.2d 848 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
Hebert v. CITY OF FIFTY LAKES 784 N.W.2d 848 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
v. P.R., Aronovitch v. Levy, 238 Minn. 237, 241
Howe v. Hauge 766 N.W.2d 50 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
Howe v. Hauge 766 N.W.2d 50 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
Aronovitch v. Levy, 238 Minn. 237, 242
State Ex Rel. Sviggum v. Hanson 732 N.W.2d 312 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
State Ex Rel. Sviggum v. Hanson 732 N.W.2d 312 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
Aronovitch v. Levy, 238 Minn. 237, 242 , Fetsch v. Holm, 236 Minn. 158, 163
Kahnke v. Green 695 N.W.2d 148 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
Kahnke v. Green 695 N.W.2d 148 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
391 (1904); Aronovitch v. Levy, 238 Minn. 237, 242
Clayton v. Kiffmeyer 688 N.W.2d 117 Minn. 2004
Clayton v. Kiffmeyer 688 N.W.2d 117 Minn. 2004
Laches is an equitable doctrine applied 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 , ).
Melendez v. O'CONNOR 654 N.W.2d 114 Minn. 2002
Melendez v. O'CONNOR 654 N.W.2d 114 Minn. 2002
In election contests, “we especially consider the application of laches, an equitable doctrine applied 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 , ).
Piepho v. Bruns 652 N.W.2d 40 Minn. 2002
Piepho v. Bruns 652 N.W.2d 40 Minn. 2002
With respect to the timeliness of the petition, in the election context we especially consider the application of lach-es, an equitable doctrine applied 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
Winters v. Kiffmeyer 650 N.W.2d 167 Minn. 2002
Winters v. Kiffmeyer 650 N.W.2d 167 Minn. 2002
Laches is an equitable doctrine applied 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
Collins v. Miller & Miller, Ltd. 943 P.2d 747 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
Patzner v. Schaefer 551 N.W.2d 736 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
Patzner v. Schaefer 551 N.W.2d 736 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
See Aronovitch v. Levy, 238 Minn. 237, 242 , (stating that the purpose of the 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”).
Harr v. City of Edina 541 N.W.2d 603 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
Harr v. City of Edina 541 N.W.2d 603 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
The purpose of the doctrine 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