Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite E.C.I. Corp. v. G.G.C. Co., 237 N.W.2d 627.

70 citing documents.

All Around Property Preservation, LLC v. Ronald Clark, Bank of America, N.A., ... Minn. Ct. App. 2025
All Around Property Preservation, LLC v. Ronald Clark, Bank of America, N.A., ... Minn. Ct. App. 2025
Co., (discussing Minn. Stat. § 514.03 (1971)).
Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, Respondent, vs. True Gravity Ventures, LLC, et al., Respondents, Astra Genstar ... Minn. 2025
Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, Respondent, vs. True Gravity Ventures, LLC, et al., Respondents, Astra Genstar ... Minn. 2025
Co., (holding that the interests of justice supported reinstatement of an appeal where the court clerk’s error led to the late filing of the appeal); Order at 1 (Minn. filed Mar.
Tokvan Ly v. Jodi Harpstead, Minnesota Commissioner of Human Services 7 N.W.3d 560 Minn. 2024
Tokvan Ly v. Jodi Harpstead, Minnesota Commissioner of Human Services 7 N.W.3d 560 Minn. 2024
Carolina Holdings Midwest, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, d/b/a Inter-State Lumber v. James A.... Minn. Ct. App. 2023
Carolina Holdings Midwest, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, d/b/a Inter-State Lumber v. James A.... Minn. Ct. App. 2023
Distinguished Stern 1011 First Street South, LLC, et al., Minn. 2022
Co., is distinguishable.
All, Inc., Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
COMMANDEUR LLC v. Howard Hartry, Inc. 724 N.W.2d 508 Minn. 2006
COMMANDEUR LLC v. Howard Hartry, Inc. 724 N.W.2d 508 Minn. 2006
Busch v. Model Corp. 708 N.W.2d 546 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
Busch v. Model Corp. 708 N.W.2d 546 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
Carolina Holdings Midwest, LLC v. Copouls 658 N.W.2d 236 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
Carolina Holdings Midwest, LLC v. Copouls 658 N.W.2d 236 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
In Re the Welfare of J.R. 655 N.W.2d 1 Minn. 2003
In Re the Welfare of J.R. 655 N.W.2d 1 Minn. 2003
Co., 306 Minn. 433, 435-36
Marzitelli v. City of Little Canada 582 N.W.2d 904 Minn. 1998
Marriage of Erickson v. Erickson 506 N.W.2d 679 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
Marriage of Erickson v. Erickson 506 N.W.2d 679 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
DECISION Limitations on the time to appeal “are designed to expedite the final resolution of litigation, with due consideration to fairness and certainty of procedure.” ECI Corp. v. GGC Co., 306 Minn. 433, 435
Minnegasco, Inc. v. County of Carver 447 N.W.2d 878 Minn. 1989
Minnegasco, Inc. v. County of Carver 447 N.W.2d 878 Minn. 1989
Co., 306 Minn. 433, 435 , ).
Jackson v. State 447 N.W.2d 430 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Jackson v. State 447 N.W.2d 430 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Hart v. FMC Corp. 446 N.W.2d 194 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Hart v. FMC Corp. 446 N.W.2d 194 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
ECI Corp. v. GGC Co., 306 Minn. 433, 437
Gardner v. Hatch 408 N.W.2d 879 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Gardner v. Hatch 408 N.W.2d 879 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Co., 306 Minn. 433, 463-67 , (evidence of contract allowable when recovery based on reasonable value of the portion of the project completed).
Tarutis v. Commissioner of Revenue 393 N.W.2d 667 Minn. 1986
Tarutis v. Commissioner of Revenue 393 N.W.2d 667 Minn. 1986
Co., 306 Minn. 433, 435 , Henderson v. Estate of Snodgrass, 289 Minn. 543
Eager v. Siwek Lumber & Millwork, Inc. 392 N.W.2d 691 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Eager v. Siwek Lumber & Millwork, Inc. 392 N.W.2d 691 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Co., 306 Minn. 433, 435 , the supreme court noted: “[T]he time to appeal an issue begins to run anew from a modification of judgment when the issue was for some reason not appealable before the modification.” Appellant’s separate appeal from the amended judgment to consider the court’s modified decision on at
Paving Plus, Inc. v. Professional Investment, Inc. 382 N.W.2d 912 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Paving Plus, Inc. v. Professional Investment, Inc. 382 N.W.2d 912 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Co., 306 Minn. 433, 436-37
Midway National Bank of St. Paul v. Ray 359 N.W.2d 644 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Midway National Bank of St. Paul v. Ray 359 N.W.2d 644 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Co., 306 Minn. 433 , Minn.R.Civ.App.P.
Zontelli & Sons, Inc. v. City of Nashwauk 353 N.W.2d 600 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Zontelli & Sons, Inc. v. City of Nashwauk 353 N.W.2d 600 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Co., 306 Minn. 433, 435 , ).
In Re the Marriage of Martensen v. Johnson 350 N.W.2d 467 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
In Re the Marriage of Martensen v. Johnson 350 N.W.2d 467 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Co., 306 Minn. 433, 435 , the court said: Limitations on time to appeal are designed to expedite the final resolution of litigation, with due consideration to fairness and certainty of procedure.
Marriage of Swartwoudt v. Swartwoudt 349 N.W.2d 600 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Marriage of Swartwoudt v. Swartwoudt 349 N.W.2d 600 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Wilson v. Mitchell 349 N.W.2d 586 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Wilson v. Mitchell 349 N.W.2d 586 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Caldwell v. State 347 N.W.2d 824 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Caldwell v. State 347 N.W.2d 824 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Corp. v. G.G.C Co., 306 Minn. 433, 437
Marriage of Servin v. Servin 345 N.W.2d 754 Minn. 1984
Marriage of Servin v. Servin 345 N.W.2d 754 Minn. 1984
Co., 306 Minn. 433 , that “[t]he correct application of Rule 104.01 is that the time to appeal an issue begins to run anew from a modification of judgment when the issue was for some reason not appealable before the modification.” Id.
Bongard v. Bongard 342 N.W.2d 156 Minn. Ct. App. 1983