Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Lowry Hill Properties, Inc. v. Ashbach Construction Co., 194 N.W.2d 767.

33 citing documents.

Robert Sharot, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
John Moore, Minn. 2021
Co. , ( explaining that pile driving and pavement removal is not covered by section 541.051).
Montemayor v. Sebright Products, Inc. 898 N.W.2d 623 Minn. 2017
Montemayor v. Sebright Products, Inc. 898 N.W.2d 623 Minn. 2017
Kelly ex rel. Washburn v. Kraemer Construction, Inc. 896 N.W.2d 504 Minn. 2017
RK Midway, LLC v. Metropolitan Council Minn. Ct. App. 2017
RK Midway, LLC v. Metropolitan Council Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Lowry Hill I, 291 Minn 429
Joan M. Nichols v. State of Minnesota, Office of the Secretary of State Minn. 2015
Nichols v. State 858 N.W.2d 773 Minn. 2015
Nichols v. State 858 N.W.2d 773 Minn. 2015
Co., 291 Minn. 429, 436-37
Joan M. Nichols v. State of Minnesota, Office of the Secretary of State Minn. 2015
Co., 291 Minn. 429, 436-37
Anderson v. State, Department of Natural Resources 693 N.W.2d 181 Minn. 2005
Anderson v. State, Department of Natural Resources 693 N.W.2d 181 Minn. 2005
Lowry Hill Properties, Inc. v. Ashbach Const. Co., 291 Minn. 429, 440
Writers, Inc. v. West Bend Mutual Insurance Co. 465 N.W.2d 419 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
Writers, Inc. v. West Bend Mutual Insurance Co. 465 N.W.2d 419 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
Lowry Hill Properties, Inc. v. Ashbach Construction Co., 291 Minn. 429, 439-440
Fiveland v. Bollig & Sons, Inc. 436 N.W.2d 478 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Fiveland v. Bollig & Sons, Inc. 436 N.W.2d 478 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Appellants’ reliance upon Lowry Hill Properties, Inc. v. Ashbach Construction Co., 291 Minn. 429 , is misplaced.
Albany Roller Mills, Inc. v. Northern United Feeds & Seeds, Inc. 397 N.W.2d 430 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Albany Roller Mills, Inc. v. Northern United Feeds & Seeds, Inc. 397 N.W.2d 430 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
See Lowry Hill Properties v. Ash-bach Construction, 291 Minn. 429, 439-40
Hasan v. McDonald's Corp. 377 N.W.2d 472 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Hasan v. McDonald's Corp. 377 N.W.2d 472 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Lowry Hill Properties v. Askbach Construction, 291 Minn. 429, 439-40
Lovgren v. Peoples Elec. Co., Inc. 368 N.W.2d 16 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Lovgren v. Peoples Elec. Co., Inc. 368 N.W.2d 16 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
While it is true that not every addition to real property is an improvement to real property, Lowry Hill Properties, Inc. v. Ashbach Const. Co., 291 Minn. 429 , the Minnesota Supreme Court has found that an “improvement” is: [A] permanent addition to or betterment of real property that enhances its capital value and that involves the expenditure of labor or money and is designed to make the property more useful or valuable as distinguished from ordina
Lundgren v. Eustermann 356 N.W.2d 762 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Lundgren v. Eustermann 356 N.W.2d 762 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Lowry Hill Properties, Inc. v. Ashbach Const. Co., 291 Minn. 429, 440
Short v. Sun Newspapers, Inc. 300 N.W.2d 781 Minn. 1980
Short v. Sun Newspapers, Inc. 300 N.W.2d 781 Minn. 1980
Lowry Hill Properties, Inc. v. Ashbach Construction Co., 291 Minn. 429, 439
Kittson County v. Wells, Denbrook & Associates, Inc. 241 N.W.2d 799 Minn. 1976
Kittson County v. Wells, Denbrook & Associates, Inc. 241 N.W.2d 799 Minn. 1976
2 In Lowry Hill Properties, Inc. v. Ashbach Const. Co. 291 Minn. 429 , we held only that pile driving and paving activities did not constitute a condition of an improvement to real property and were therefore not within the statute.
North Star Center, Inc. v. Sibley Bowl, Inc. 205 N.W.2d 331 Minn. 1973
North Star Center, Inc. v. Sibley Bowl, Inc. 205 N.W.2d 331 Minn. 1973
Cf. Lowry Hill Properties, *427 Inc. v. Ashbach Const. Co. 291 Minn. 429
Lowry Hill Properties, Inc. v. STATE, BY HEAD 200 N.W.2d 295 Minn. 1972
Lowry Hill Properties, Inc. v. STATE, BY HEAD 200 N.W.2d 295 Minn. 1972
The first, Lowry Hill Properties, Inc. v. Ashbach Const. Co. 291 Minn. 429 , recites the facts in sufficient detail, the most important of which for present purposes is that defendant contractors were bound by their contract with the state to assume full responsibility for any damages to private properties, with property damage liability insurance in the minimum amou