Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Har-Mar, Incorporated v. Thorsen & Thorshov, Inc., 218 N.W.2d 751.

61 citing documents.

Elmore Truck and Trailer Repair, Inc., Relator (A16-1008), Dahl Trucking, Inc., Relator (A16-1009), Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Minn. Stat. § 541.07 governs the commencement of “actions,” which refers to “judicial proceedings.” Minn. Stat. § 541.07; see Har–Mar, Inc. v. Thorsen & Thorshov, Inc., 300 Minn. 149, 152-53, (defining “actions” in the context of six-year statute-of-limitations as “judicial proceedings”); see also Homewood Theatre v. Loew’s Inc., 101 F. Supp. 76, 77 (D. Minn. 1951) (noting that Minn. Stat. § 541.07(5) was designed and intended to be limited to actions for wages, damag
Leiendecker v. Asian Women United of Minnesota 834 N.W.2d 741 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
Leiendecker v. Asian Women United of Minnesota 834 N.W.2d 741 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
Waiver is defined as “a voluntary relinquishment of a known right.” HarMar, Inc. v. Thorsen & Thorshov, Inc., 300 Minn. 149, 156-57 , (quotation omitted).
In re Pera Salary Determinations Affecting Retired & Active Employees 820 N.W.2d 563 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
In re Pera Salary Determinations Affecting Retired & Active Employees 820 N.W.2d 563 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
Each of these statutes of limitations, however, governs “actions,” which refers “to judicial proceedings.” Har-Mar, Inc. v. Thorsen & Thorshov, Inc., 300 Minn. 149, 152
Marriage of Gerber v. Gerber 714 N.W.2d 702 Minn. 2006
Marriage of Gerber v. Gerber 714 N.W.2d 702 Minn. 2006
Community Partners Designs, Inc. v. City of Lonsdale 697 N.W.2d 629 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
Community Partners Designs, Inc. v. City of Lonsdale 697 N.W.2d 629 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
See Har-Mar, Inc. v. Thorsen & Thorshov, Inc., 300 Minn. 149, 150-51 , Grover-Dimond Assocs.
Illinois Farmers Insurance Co. v. Glass Service Co. 683 N.W.2d 792 Minn. 2004
Illinois Farmers Insurance Co. v. Glass Service Co. 683 N.W.2d 792 Minn. 2004
Har-Mar, Inc. v. Thorsen & Thorshov, Inc., 300 Minn. 149, 156-57
Vaubel Farms, Inc. v. Shelby Farmers Mutual 679 N.W.2d 407 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
Vaubel Farms, Inc. v. Shelby Farmers Mutual 679 N.W.2d 407 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
Har-Mar, Inc. v. Thorsen & Thorshov, Inc., 300 Minn. 149, 155
Independent School District No. 775 v. Holm Bros. Plumbing & Heating, Inc. 660 N.W.2d 146 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
Independent School District No. 775 v. Holm Bros. Plumbing & Heating, Inc. 660 N.W.2d 146 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
Har-Mdr, Inc. v. Thorsen & Thorshov, Inc., 300 Minn. 149, 155-56
Peggy Rose Revocable Trust v. Eppich 640 N.W.2d 601 Minn. 2002
Peggy Rose Revocable Trust v. Eppich 640 N.W.2d 601 Minn. 2002
The problem, however, is that arbitration “is not the bringing of an action under any of our statutes of limitation” (Har-Mar, Inc. v. Thorsen & Thorshov, Inc., 300 Minn. 149, 154 , (quoting Skidmore, Owings & Merrill v. Connecticut Gen.
Fedie v. Mid-Century Insurance Co. 631 N.W.2d 815 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
Fedie v. Mid-Century Insurance Co. 631 N.W.2d 815 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
David Co. v. Jim W. Miller Const., Inc., (quotation omitted), aff'd, see, e.g., Har-Mar, Inc. v. Thorsen & Thorshov, Inc., 300 Minn. 149, 157 , (finding “trial court’s factual conclusion cannot be sustained” where no facts in record support a voluntary relinquishment of known right); (quoting language from Har-Mar and finding “trial court’s factual conclu
Hughes v. Lund 603 N.W.2d 674 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
Hughes v. Lund 603 N.W.2d 674 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
Co., (citing Har-Mar, Inc. v. Thorsen & Thorshov, Inc., 300 Minn. 149, 155 , -56 (1974)), review denied (Minn.1998).
Kulinski v. Medtronic Bio-Medicus, Inc. 577 N.W.2d 499 Minn. 1998
Kulinski v. Medtronic Bio-Medicus, Inc. 577 N.W.2d 499 Minn. 1998
See, e.g., Har-Mar, Inc. v. Thorsen & Thorshov, Inc., 300 Minn. 149, 152-53 , (quoting the common-law definition of "action” as “the prosecution in a court of justice of some demand or assertion of right by one person against another”); see also Minn.Stat.
Hanson v. Larson 459 N.W.2d 339 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
Hanson v. Larson 459 N.W.2d 339 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
Har-Mar, Inc. v. Thorsen & Thorshov, Inc., 300 Minn. 149
Kersting v. Royal-Milbank Insurance 456 N.W.2d 270 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
Kersting v. Royal-Milbank Insurance 456 N.W.2d 270 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
(In the labor law context, “[arbitration is not a judicial proceeding and, therefore [the Full Faith and Credit Act] does not apply to arbitration *274 awards” (footnote omitted)); Har Mar, Inc. v. Thorsen & Thorshov, 300 Minn. 149, 154 , (“Arbitration is not a common law action and the institution of arbitration proceedings is not the bringing of an action under any of our statutes of limitation” (citation omitted)).
Arbitration Demand of 200 Levee Drive Associates, Ltd. v. Bor-Son Building Corp. 441 N.W.2d 560 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Arbitration Demand of 200 Levee Drive Associates, Ltd. v. Bor-Son Building Corp. 441 N.W.2d 560 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Therefore “this gap or arguable deficiency * * * must be filled by agreement of the parties.” Har-Mar, Inc. v. Thorsen & Thorshov, Inc., 300 Minn. 149, 155-56 , (footnote omitted); (parties may restrict arbitration by mutual agreement).
Bednarek v. Bednarek 430 N.W.2d 9 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Bednarek v. Bednarek 430 N.W.2d 9 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
See Har-Mar, Inc. v. Thorsen & Thorshov, Inc., 300 Minn. 149, 155 , (holding that Minn.Stat.
R.M. Bennett Heirs v. Ontario Iron Co. 426 N.W.2d 921 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
R.M. Bennett Heirs v. Ontario Iron Co. 426 N.W.2d 921 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
See Har-Mar, Inc. v. Thorsen & Thorshov, Inc., 300 Minn. 149, 153 , -55 (1974) (an arbitration proceeding is not an “action”).
Driessen-Rieke v. Steckman 409 N.W.2d 50 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Driessen-Rieke v. Steckman 409 N.W.2d 50 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Har-Mar, Inc. v. Thorsen and Thorshov, Inc., 300 Minn. 149, 157
Lucas v. American Family Mutual Insurance Co. 403 N.W.2d 646 Minn. 1987
Lucas v. American Family Mutual Insurance Co. 403 N.W.2d 646 Minn. 1987
d at 751 ; Har-Mar, Inc. v. Thorsen & Thorshov, Inc., 300 Minn. 149, 153 , -55 (1974) (specifically holding that an arbitration proceeding is not an “action”).
County of Hennepin v. Ada-Bec Systems 394 N.W.2d 611 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
County of Hennepin v. Ada-Bec Systems 394 N.W.2d 611 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Har Mar, Inc. v. Thorsen & Thorshov, Inc., 300 Minn. 149, 156-57
State v. DeWitt 389 N.W.2d 722 Minn. 1986
State v. DeWitt 389 N.W.2d 722 Minn. 1986
In addition, this court has not restricted the term “action” to civil proceedings: “The few Minnesota cases which have attempted a common law definition of ‘action’ have restricted it to ‘the prosecution in a court of justice of some demand or assertion of right by one person against another.’ ” Har-Mar, Inc. v. Thorsen & Thorshov, Inc., 300 Minn. 149, 152-53 , quoting Muirhead v. Johnson, 232 Minn. 408, 412
In Re Wage & Hour Violations of Holly Inn, Inc. 386 N.W.2d 305 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
In Re Wage & Hour Violations of Holly Inn, Inc. 386 N.W.2d 305 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
See *308 Har-Mar, Inc. v. Thorsen & Thorshov, Inc., 300 Minn. 149, 152-53
Fairview Cemetery Ass'n of Stillwater v. Eckberg 385 N.W.2d 812 Minn. 1986
Fairview Cemetery Ass'n of Stillwater v. Eckberg 385 N.W.2d 812 Minn. 1986
See Brothers Jurewicz, *818 Inc. v. Atari, Inc., Har-Mar, Inc. v. Thorsen & Thor-shov, Inc., 300 Minn. 149
O'Neill v. Illinois Farmers Insurance Co. 381 N.W.2d 439 Minn. 1986
O'Neill v. Illinois Farmers Insurance Co. 381 N.W.2d 439 Minn. 1986
Because neither in the policy nor in the statutes was there a limitation period for the bringing of arbitration claims, the court of appeals correctly held, following Har-Mar, Inc. v. Thorsen & Thorshov, Inc., 300 Minn. 149 , that time did not begin to run until the arbitration claim was made and denied.
Karels v. American Family Mutual Insurance Co. 371 N.W.2d 617 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Karels v. American Family Mutual Insurance Co. 371 N.W.2d 617 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Har-Mar, Inc. v. Thorsen & Thorshov, Inc., 300 Minn. 149, 152-55 , -55 (1974).
Spira v. American Standard Insurance Co. 361 N.W.2d 454 Minn. Ct. App. 1985