Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Roaderick v. Lull Engineering Company, Inc., 208 N.W.2d 761.

30 citing documents.

Robert Davis Construction, Inc. v. Morgan C. Althoen Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Robert Davis Construction, Inc. v. Morgan C. Althoen Minn. Ct. App. 2014
See Roaderick v. Lull Eng’g Co., Inc., 296 Minn. 385, 388, (holding that party to unenforceable oral contract may recover for reasonable value of services in quantum meruit); (equating unjust enrichment with quantum meruit).
Sipe v. STS Manufacturing, Inc. 822 N.W.2d 2 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
Sipe v. STS Manufacturing, Inc. 822 N.W.2d 2 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
state law respecting the payment of wages or overtime or damages, fees, or penalties.” Section 541.07(5) generally applies “whenever ‘the gravamen of the action is the breach of an employment contract.’ ” Hamann, d at 832 (quoting Portlance, d at 243 , reasoning that a breach-of-employment-contract claim is “essentially a claim for wages”); see also Roaderick v. Lull Eng’g Co., 296 Minn. 385, 387-88 , (noting that “contractual, as well as statutory, wage claims are governed by the 2-year limitat
Derosier v. Utility Systems of America, Inc. 780 N.W.2d 1 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
Derosier v. Utility Systems of America, Inc. 780 N.W.2d 1 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
It is itself an executed contract, and it may be expressed or implied from circumstances which clearly and unequivocally indicate the intention of the parties.” Roaderick v. Lull Eng’g Co., 296 Minn. 385, 389
McClure v. Davis Engineering, L.L.C. 716 N.W.2d 354 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
McClure v. Davis Engineering, L.L.C. 716 N.W.2d 354 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
ument ignores the language in section 541.07(5) that defines “damages” as those “accorded by any statutory cause of action.” In Roaderick v. Lull Eng’g Co., a case relied on by the district court and by Douglas Machine here, the Minnesota Supreme Court noted, “We have held that contractual, as well as statutory, wage claims are governed by the 2-year limitation prescribed by [section] 541.07(5).” 296 Minn. 385, 387-88
Bolander v. Bolander 703 N.W.2d 529 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
Bolander v. Bolander 703 N.W.2d 529 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
CB&S cites Roaderick v. Lull Eng’g Co., 296 Minn. 385 , in support of its argument.
Webb Business Promotions, Inc. v. American Electronics & Entertainment Corp. 617 N.W.2d 67 Minn. 2000
Webb Business Promotions, Inc. v. American Electronics & Entertainment Corp. 617 N.W.2d 67 Minn. 2000
Roaderick v. Lull Eng’g Co., 296 Minn. 385, 389
Weed v. Commissioner of Revenue 550 N.W.2d 285 Minn. 1996
Weed v. Commissioner of Revenue 550 N.W.2d 285 Minn. 1996
Accord and satisfaction “is itself an executed contract, and it may be expressed or implied from circumstances which clearly and unequivocally indicate the intention of the parties.” Roaderick v. Lull Eng’g Co., 296 Minn. 385, 389
Levin v. C.O.M.B. Co. 441 N.W.2d 801 Minn. 1989
Levin v. C.O.M.B. Co. 441 N.W.2d 801 Minn. 1989
See Honn v. National Computer System, Inc., Roaderick v. Lull Engineering Co., 296 Minn. 385, 388
Schaefer v. Bork 413 N.W.2d 873 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Schaefer v. Bork 413 N.W.2d 873 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
See Roaderick v. Lull Engineering Co., Inc., 296 Minn. 385, 388 , (contract requiring minimum of two years’ employment is not to be performed within one year and so is unenforceable under the statute of frauds).
O'Brien Entertainment Agency, Inc. v. Wolfgramm 407 N.W.2d 463 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
O'Brien Entertainment Agency, Inc. v. Wolfgramm 407 N.W.2d 463 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
See Roaderick v. Lull Engineering Co., Inc., 296 Minn. 385, 388
Portlance v. Golden Valley State Bank 405 N.W.2d 240 Minn. 1987
Portlance v. Golden Valley State Bank 405 N.W.2d 240 Minn. 1987
In Roaderick v. Lull Engineering Company, Inc., 296 Minn. 385, 387-88 , an action based on quantum meruit for the recovery of the reasonable value of services performed under an unenforceable oral contract, the portion of the claim which had accrued more than two years before the commencement of the action was held barred by the limitation prescribed
Kramer v. Bruns 396 N.W.2d 627 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Kramer v. Bruns 396 N.W.2d 627 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
1 In Roaderick v. Lull Engineering Co., 296 Minn. 385 , the Minnesota Supreme Court held that an oral employment agreement providing for a minimum of two years’ employment precluded plaintiff’s action based on the statute of frauds.
ACTON CONST. CO., INC. v. State 363 N.W.2d 130 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
ACTON CONST. CO., INC. v. State 363 N.W.2d 130 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
“It is itself an executed contract, and it may be expressed or implied from circumstances which clearly and unequivocally indicate the intention of the parties.” Roaderick v. Lull Engineering Co., Inc., 296 Minn. 385, 389
Eklund v. Vincent Brass and Aluminum Co. 351 N.W.2d 371 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Eklund v. Vincent Brass and Aluminum Co. 351 N.W.2d 371 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
The trial court relied on Roaderick v. Lull Engineering Company, Inc., 296 Minn. 385 , in holding that Eklund’s alleged contract for permanent employment until retirement was not enforceable because it could not be performed within one year.
Worwa v. SOLZ ENTERPRISES, INC 238 N.W.2d 628 Minn. 1976
Worwa v. SOLZ ENTERPRISES, INC 238 N.W.2d 628 Minn. 1976
Roaderick v. Lull Engineering Co. Inc. 296 Minn. 385