Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite M. E. Kraft Excavating & Grading Co. v. Barac Construction Co., 156 N.W.2d 748.

34 citing documents.

Ryan Contracting Company v. O'Neill & Murphy, LLP 883 N.W.2d 236 Minn. 2016
Ryan Contracting Company v. O'Neill & Murphy, LLP 883 N.W.2d 236 Minn. 2016
Co., 279 Minn. 278, 285, -53 (1968).
Big Lake Lumber, Inc. v. Security Property Investments, Inc. 836 N.W.2d 359 Minn. 2013
Big Lake Lumber, Inc. v. Security Property Investments, Inc. 836 N.W.2d 359 Minn. 2013
Co., 279 Minn. 278, 283 , ); see also Duininck Bros. & Gilchrist v. Brandondale Chaska Corp., 311 Minn. 291, 293 , (“Mechanics liens are purely statutory in nature, and the jurisdiction of our courts in this area is thus strictly governed by the statutes.”).
Eclipse Architectural Group, Inc. v. Lam 814 N.W.2d 692 Minn. 2012
Eclipse Architectural Group, Inc. v. Lam 814 N.W.2d 692 Minn. 2012
Co., 279 Minn. 278, 283 , (explaining that “[mjechanics liens are purely creatures of statutes and the rights of the parties are governed by the language of the statutes”).
Eclipse Architectural Group, Inc. v. Lam 799 N.W.2d 632 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
Eclipse Architectural Group, Inc. v. Lam 799 N.W.2d 632 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
Co., 279 Minn. 278, 288 , ).
Riverview Muir Doran, LLC v. JADT Development Group, LLC 790 N.W.2d 167 Minn. 2010
Riverview Muir Doran, LLC v. JADT Development Group, LLC 790 N.W.2d 167 Minn. 2010
Premier Bank v. BECKER DEVELOPMENT, LLC 785 N.W.2d 753 Minn. 2010
Premier Bank v. BECKER DEVELOPMENT, LLC 785 N.W.2d 753 Minn. 2010
Co., 279 Minn. 278, 283 , (explaining that mechanic’s liens are “purely creatures of statutes and the rights of the parties are governed by the language of the statutes”).
KIRKWOLD CONST. v. MGA Const., Inc. 498 N.W.2d 465 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
KIRKWOLD CONST. v. MGA Const., Inc. 498 N.W.2d 465 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
Co., 279 Minn. 278, 286-87 , -54 (1968).
Kirkwold Construction Co. v. M.G.A. Construction, Inc. 498 N.W.2d 465 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
Kirkwold Construction Co. v. M.G.A. Construction, Inc. 498 N.W.2d 465 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
Co., 279 Minn. 278, 286-87 , -54 (1968).
Carlson-Grefe Construction, Inc. v. Rosemount Condominium Group Partnership 474 N.W.2d 405 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
Carlson-Grefe Construction, Inc. v. Rosemount Condominium Group Partnership 474 N.W.2d 405 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
Witcher Construction Co. v. Estes II Ltd. Partnership 465 N.W.2d 404 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
Witcher Construction Co. v. Estes II Ltd. Partnership 465 N.W.2d 404 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
E.H. Renner & Sons, Inc. v. Sherburne Homes Inc. 458 N.W.2d 177 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
E.H. Renner & Sons, Inc. v. Sherburne Homes Inc. 458 N.W.2d 177 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
The Minnesota Supreme Court stated, “whether one has the status of a bona fide mortgagee without notice depends upon whether or not there was an actual and visible beginning of the improvement on the ground prior to the recording of the mortgage.” M.E. Kraft Excavating & Grading Co., Inc. v. Barac Construction Co., 279 Minn. 278, 284 , (emphasis in original); see also Dunham Associates, Inc. v. Group Investments, Inc., 301 Minn. 108, 117-18 , -83 (1974).
Jadwin v. Kasal 318 N.W.2d 844 Minn. 1982
Jadwin v. Kasal 318 N.W.2d 844 Minn. 1982
M. E. Kraft Excavating and Grading Co. v. Barac Construction Co., 279 Minn. 278 , Reuben E. Johnson Co. v. Phelps, 279 Minn. 107
Carl H. Peterson Co. v. Zero Estates 261 N.W.2d 346 Minn. 1977
Carl H. Peterson Co. v. Zero Estates 261 N.W.2d 346 Minn. 1977
Co. v. Barac Const. Co., 279 Minn. 278
Kloster-Madsen, Inc. v. Tafi's, Inc. 226 N.W.2d 603 Minn. 1975
Kloster-Madsen, Inc. v. Tafi's, Inc. 226 N.W.2d 603 Minn. 1975
Reuben E. Johnson Co. v. Phelps, 279 Minn. 107 , M. E. Kraft Excavating & Grading Co. v. Barac Const. Co. 279 Minn. 278 , Lampert Yards, Inc. v. Thompson-Wetterling Const. & Realty, Inc. 302 Minn. 83
Dunham Associates, Inc. v. Group Investments, Inc. 223 N.W.2d 376 Minn. 1974
Dunham Associates, Inc. v. Group Investments, Inc. 223 N.W.2d 376 Minn. 1974
Co. v. Barac Const. Co. 279 Minn. 278 , the appellants contended that a mortgagee had actual knowledge of the architect’s preliminary work and the survey and should therefore be chargeable with notice even though there was no actual or visible improvement on the ground.
Anderson v. Breezy Point Estates 168 N.W.2d 693 Minn. 1969
Anderson v. Breezy Point Estates 168 N.W.2d 693 Minn. 1969
M. E. Kraft Ex *494 cavating & Grading Co. v. Barac Const. Co. 279 Minn. 278, 283 , 156 N. W. (2d) 748, 751 .
Albert and Harlow Inc. v. Great Northern Oil Co. 167 N.W.2d 500 Minn. 1969
Albert and Harlow Inc. v. Great Northern Oil Co. 167 N.W.2d 500 Minn. 1969
*250 Although the rights of the parties must be governed by the language of the mechanics lien statute (M. E. Kraft Excavating & Grading Co. Inc. v. Barac Const. Co. 279 Minn. 278 , 156 N. W. [2d] 748, and Rueben E. Johnson Co. v. Phelps, 279 Minn. 107 , 156 N. W. [2d] 247), we have consistently held that the lien laws, being remedial in nature, should be liberally construed so as to protect those who furnish material or services for the improvement of the property of another.