Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Lundstrom Construction Co. v. Dygert, 94 N.W.2d 527.

39 citing documents.

Chad Monson, et al., Respondents, Minn. Ct. App. 2024
See, (“Under the theory of quasi-contract, the right to recover is governed by principles of equity, but the remedy— the obligation upon which the right of recovery rests—is created and imposed by law to prevent unjust enrichment at the expense of another.”); R (M
Craig Scherber & Associates, Inc., Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
v. Dygert , -33 (Minn. 1959) (describing Karon as a case involving the challenge of a valid contract for want of an agent’s authority to represent the property owner).
Producers Livestock Credit Corporation, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Tony�s Construction v. Kraus-Anderson Construction Company, St. Louis County Schools - ISD 2142 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Tony�s Construction v. Kraus-Anderson Construction Company, St. Louis County Schools - ISD 2142 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Contractors Edge, Inc. v. City of Mankato Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Contractors Edge, Inc. v. City of Mankato Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Ctr., Inc. v. Studtmann, 302 Minn. 14, 16, (holding that building owners waived contractual provision requiring documentation of extra work where they were “fully aware of the fact that extras were being included as the work progressed” and only disputed the cost of extras); Lundstrom Const. Co. v. Dygert, 254 Minn. 224, d 527, 534 (1959) (holding that contract provision requiring cost of extras to be agreed upon in advance in writing may be waived).
David P. Cook v. Wendi C. Wicktor-Heinks Minn. Ct. App. 2014
David P. Cook v. Wendi C. Wicktor-Heinks Minn. Ct. App. 2014
This doctrine is based in equity, not on the intentions or promises of the parties, and the remedy is created and imposed by law “to prevent unjust enrichment at the expense of another.” Lundstrom Const. Co v. Dygert, 254 Minn. 224, 231, 5 (1959).
Southtown Plumbing, Inc. v. Har-Ned Lumber Co. 493 N.W.2d 137 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
Southtown Plumbing, Inc. v. Har-Ned Lumber Co. 493 N.W.2d 137 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
Co. v. Dygert, 254 Minn. 224, 231 , (action for unjust enrichment is quasi-contractual agreement implied by law); Dusenka v. Dusenka, 221 Minn. 234, 238 , (quasi-contractual obligation is defined in equity and good conscience
Mrozik Construction, Inc. v. Lovering Associates, Inc. 461 N.W.2d 49 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
Mrozik Construction, Inc. v. Lovering Associates, Inc. 461 N.W.2d 49 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
Co. v. Dygert, 254 Minn. 224, 229-30
Skjod v. Hofstede 402 N.W.2d 839 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Skjod v. Hofstede 402 N.W.2d 839 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
The supreme court has suggested that subcontractors might be allowed to recover against property owners when there are “unusual” circumstances “which would result in unjust enrichment unless subcontractors were permitted to recover in quasi-contract.” Lund strom Construction Co. v. Dygert, 254 Minn. 224, 232
Enviro-Fab, Inc. v. Blandin Paper Co. 349 N.W.2d 842 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Enviro-Fab, Inc. v. Blandin Paper Co. 349 N.W.2d 842 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Buchman Plumbing Co., Inc. v. Regents of University, 298 Minn. 328 , d *848 479 (1974); Lundstrom Construction Co. v. Dygert, 254 Minn. 224
Duluth Lumber & Plywood Co. v. Delta Development, Inc. 281 N.W.2d 377 Minn. 1979
Duluth Lumber & Plywood Co. v. Delta Development, Inc. 281 N.W.2d 377 Minn. 1979
Johnson & Peterson, Inc. v. Toohey, 285 Minn. 181 , second appeal dismissed, 289 Minn. 362 , Lundstrom Construction Co. v. Dygert, 254 Minn. 224
Sussel Co. v. First Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n of St. Paul 232 N.W.2d 88 Minn. 1975
Sussel Co. v. First Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n of St. Paul 232 N.W.2d 88 Minn. 1975
In Lundstrom Const. Co. v. Dygert, 254 Minn. 224 , a contractor waived all rights to file mechanics liens against the premises for labor, skill, or material furnished prior to the date of the lien waiver.
New Ulm Building Center, Inc. v. Studtmann 225 N.W.2d 4 Minn. 1974
New Ulm Building Center, Inc. v. Studtmann 225 N.W.2d 4 Minn. 1974
Lundstrom Construction Co. v. Dygert, 254 Minn. 224, 233
Project Plumbing Co. v. St. Croix Properties, Inc. 211 N.W.2d 873 Minn. 1973
Project Plumbing Co. v. St. Croix Properties, Inc. 211 N.W.2d 873 Minn. 1973
Diversified relies on Lundstrom Const. Co. v. Dygert, 254 Minn. 224 , to sustain the trial court.
Kehne Electric Co. v. Steenberg Construction Co. 177 N.W.2d 309 Minn. 1970
Kehne Electric Co. v. Steenberg Construction Co. 177 N.W.2d 309 Minn. 1970
See, Paul W. Abbott, Inc. v. Axel Newman Heating & Plumbing Co. Inc. 282 Minn. 493, 495 , 166 N. W. (2d) 323, 325 ; Donnay v. Voulware, 275 Minn. 37 , 144 N. W. (2d) 711 ; Lundstrom Const. Co. v. Dygert, 254 Minn. 224 , 94 N. W. (2d) 527 ; Kane v. Oak Grove Co. 221 Minn. 500 , 22 N. W. (2d) 588 .
Johnson & Peterson, Inc. v. Toohey 172 N.W.2d 326 Minn. 1969
Johnson & Peterson, Inc. v. Toohey 172 N.W.2d 326 Minn. 1969
Lundstrom Const. Co. v. Dygert, 254 Minn. 224 , 94 N. W. (2d) 527 ; 13 Am.
Hughes v. Monnahan 165 N.W.2d 231 Minn. 1969
Hughes v. Monnahan 165 N.W.2d 231 Minn. 1969
1 The Karon case and other authorities discussing unjust enrichment are also cited in Lundstrom Const. Co. v. Dygert, 254 Minn. 224, 231 , 94 N. W. (2d) 527, 532 .
ENGLER BROS. CONSTRUCTION COMPANY v. L'Allier 159 N.W.2d 183 Minn. 1968
ENGLER BROS. CONSTRUCTION COMPANY v. L'Allier 159 N.W.2d 183 Minn. 1968
They rely on Lundstrom Const. Co. v. Dygert, 254 Minn. 224 , 94 N. W. (2d) 527 .
Weyerhaeuser Co. v. Hvidsten 129 N.W.2d 772 Minn. 1964
Weyerhaeuser Co. v. Hvidsten 129 N.W.2d 772 Minn. 1964
Lindeke Land Co. v. Kalman, 190 Minn. 601 , 252 * A. L. R. 1393; Lundstrom Const. Co. v. Dygert, 254 Minn. 224 , 94 N. W. (2d) 527 ; 2 Conrad, Modem Trial Evidence, § 819; 2 Jones, Evidence (5 ed.) § 484; Steller v. Thomas, 232 Minn. 275 , 45 N. W. (2d) 537 .
McLellan v. Hamernick 118 N.W.2d 791 Minn. 1962
McLellan v. Hamernick 118 N.W.2d 791 Minn. 1962
We said ( 260 Minn. 51 ,109 N. W. [2d] 429): *348 The same rule is followed in Lundstrom Const. Co. v. Dygert, 254 Minn. 224 , 94 N. W. (2d) 527 , where the waiver was in a form almost identical with that used by Kostka.
Colvin Lumber & Coal Co. v. J. A. G. Corp. 109 N.W.2d 425 Minn. 1961
Colvin Lumber & Coal Co. v. J. A. G. Corp. 109 N.W.2d 425 Minn. 1961
Lundstrom Const. Co. v. Dygert, 254 Minn. 224 , 94 N. W. (2d) 527 ; Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. v. Robinson, 225 Minn. 493 , 31 N. W. (2d) 18 ; 1 Dunnell, Dig.