Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Pacific Indemnity Co. v. Thompson-Yaeger, Inc., 260 N.W.2d 548.

156 citing documents.

Thorp v. Price Bros. Co. 441 N.W.2d 817 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Pacific Indemnity Co. v. Thompson-Yaeger, Inc., (quoting Kloster-Madsen, Inc. v. Tafi’s, Inc., 303 Minn. 59, 63 , ).
Farnham v. Nasby Agri-Systems, Inc. 437 N.W.2d 759 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Farnham v. Nasby Agri-Systems, Inc. 437 N.W.2d 759 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
in Webster’s Third New International Dictionary (1971) p. 1138 and found that by definition 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 ordinary repairs.” Pacific Indemnity Co. v. Thompson-Yaeger, Inc.
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
Because the Minnesota Su *480 preme Court has adopted a common sense definition of the term “improvement” to realty, Pacific Indemnity Co. v. Thompson-Yaeger, Inc., we believe it would probably adopt a common sense or ordinary definition of “defective” as well.
Sartori v. Harnischfeger Corp. 432 N.W.2d 448 Minn. 1988
Sartori v. Harnischfeger Corp. 432 N.W.2d 448 Minn. 1988
In Pacific Indemnity Company v. Thompson-Yeager, Inc., we set forth a “common sense interpretation” of the phrase “improvement to real property” which would give “effect to the plain meaning of the words of the statute without resort to technical legal constructions of its terms.” Id.
Massie v. City of Duluth 425 N.W.2d 858 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Massie v. City of Duluth 425 N.W.2d 858 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
In Pacific Indemnity Co. v. Thompson-Yaeger, Inc., the supreme court adopted a common sense interpretation of the meaning of improvement.
O'Connor v. M.A. Mortenson Co. 424 N.W.2d 92 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
O'Connor v. M.A. Mortenson Co. 424 N.W.2d 92 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
See Pacific Indemnity Co. v. Thompson-Yaeger, Inc., (“common-sense” approach to defining the term “improvement” sanctioned).
Holstad v. Southwestern Porcelain, Inc. 421 N.W.2d 371 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Holstad v. Southwestern Porcelain, Inc. 421 N.W.2d 371 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
See Pacific Indemnity Co. v. Thompson-Yaeger, Inc.
Johnson v. Consolidated Freightways, Inc. 420 N.W.2d 608 Minn. 1988
Johnson v. Consolidated Freightways, Inc. 420 N.W.2d 608 Minn. 1988
See, e.g., Pacific Indemnity Co. v. Thompson-Yaeger, Inc., Lustik v. Rankila, 269 Minn. 515, 519-22 , 131 N.W.
Sherbrook Co. v. E & H Earth Movers, Inc. 419 N.W.2d 818 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Sherbrook Co. v. E & H Earth Movers, Inc. 419 N.W.2d 818 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Paul, (flooding caused by defective sewage system); Pacific Indemnity Co. v. Thompson-Yaeger, Inc., (fire caused by defective furnace).
Wittmer v. Ruegemer 419 N.W.2d 493 Minn. 1988
Wittmer v. Ruegemer 419 N.W.2d 493 Minn. 1988
See Pacific Indemnity Co. v. Thompson-Yaeger, Inc.
Sullivan v. Farmers & Merchants State Bank of New Ulm 398 N.W.2d 592 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Sullivan v. Farmers & Merchants State Bank of New Ulm 398 N.W.2d 592 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
In 1977, the statute was held unconstitutional on equal protection grounds in Pacific Indemnity Company v. Thompson-Yaeger, Inc., -55 (Minn.1977).
State v. Lewis 394 N.W.2d 212 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Citizens Security Mutual Insurance Co. of Red Wing v. General Electric Corp. 394 N.W.2d 167 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
CITIZENS SEC. MUT. INS. v. General Elec. 394 N.W.2d 167 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
CITIZENS SEC. MUT. INS. v. General Elec. 394 N.W.2d 167 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Because this statutory distinction was found to impose disparate treatment on designers and builders (as opposed to material suppliers) with no rational basis, the statute was declared unconstitutional in Pacific Indemnity Company v. Thompson-Yaeger, Inc.
Citizens Security Mutual Insurance Co. of Red Wing v. General Electric Corp. 394 N.W.2d 167 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Because this statutory distinction was found to impose disparate treatment on designers and builders (as opposed to material suppliers) with no rational basis, the statute was declared unconstitutional in Pacific Indemnity Company v. Thompson-Yaeger, Inc.
State v. Lewis 394 N.W.2d 212 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
We must give effect to the “plain meaning” of the words of the statute, Pacific Indemnity Co. v. Thompson-Yeager, Inc., and construe the words “according to their common and approved usage.” Minn.Stat.
Kemp v. Allis-Chalmers Corp. 390 N.W.2d 848 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Kemp v. Allis-Chalmers Corp. 390 N.W.2d 848 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
A reviewing court must give effect to the plain meaning of the statute of limitation’s language, utilizing no “technical legal construction.” Pacific Indemnity Co. v. Thompson-Yaeger, Inc.
BOGENHOLM BY BOGENHOLM v. House 388 N.W.2d 402 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
BOGENHOLM BY BOGENHOLM v. House 388 N.W.2d 402 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
In Pacific Indemnity Co. v. Thompson-Yeager, Inc., the issue of nonparty collateral estoppel was not raised by the parties nor addressed by the court.
Jostens, Inc. v. Mission Insurance Co. 387 N.W.2d 161 Minn. 1986
Jostens, Inc. v. Mission Insurance Co. 387 N.W.2d 161 Minn. 1986
See also Pacific Indemnity Co. v. Thompson-Yaeger, Inc., -57 (Minn.1977) (the loan receipt agreement permits the insured, “albeit fictitiously,” to remain the real party in interest).
Lovgren v. Peoples Elec. Co., Inc. 380 N.W.2d 791 Minn. 1986
Lovgren v. Peoples Elec. Co., Inc. 380 N.W.2d 791 Minn. 1986
In Pacific Indemnity Co. v. Thompson-Yaeger, Inc., this court ruled section 541.-051 unconstitutional.
Riewe v. Arnesen 381 N.W.2d 448 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Riewe v. Arnesen 381 N.W.2d 448 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Appellant relies primarily on Pacific Indemnity Co. v. Thompson-Yeager, Inc.
Lee v. Industrial Electric Co. 375 N.W.2d 572 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Lee v. Industrial Electric Co. 375 N.W.2d 572 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Pacific Indemnity Co. v. Thompson-Yaeger, Inc.
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
Pacific Indemnity Co. v. Thompson-Yaeger, Inc.
Bethesda Lutheran Church v. Twin City Construction Co. 356 N.W.2d 344 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Bethesda Lutheran Church v. Twin City Construction Co. 356 N.W.2d 344 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Pacific Indemnity Co. v. Thompson-Yaeger, Inc.
Calder v. City of Crystal 318 N.W.2d 838 Minn. 1982
Calder v. City of Crystal 318 N.W.2d 838 Minn. 1982
Pacific Indemnity Co. v. Thompson-Yaeger, Inc.
State Farm Insurance Companies v. Galajda 316 N.W.2d 564 Minn. 1982
State Farm Insurance Companies v. Galajda 316 N.W.2d 564 Minn. 1982
Pacific Indemnity Co. v. Thompson-Yaeger, Ind.
Wegan v. Village of Lexington 309 N.W.2d 273 Minn. 1981
Wegan v. Village of Lexington 309 N.W.2d 273 Minn. 1981
12 *281 Our decision that the classifications at issue rest on purely arbitrary grounds is consistent with our holding in Kossak 13 and also finds support in Pacific Indemnity Co. v. Thompson-Yaeger, Inc.
Hage v. Stade 304 N.W.2d 283 Minn. 1981

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by