Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Nasseff v. Schoenecker, 253 N.W.2d 374.

25 citing documents.

Timberwall Landscape & Masonry Products, Inc., Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
” Nasseff v. Schoenecker , see also Nordell , d at 578 (recognizing the purpose of the mechanic’s lien statutes is to seek “to remedy the unfairness arising from the foreclosure of mechanics liens on property of unsuspecting owners” (quotation omitted)).
S.M. Hentges & Sons, Inc. v. Mensing 777 N.W.2d 228 Minn. 2010
S.M. Hentges & Sons, Inc. v. Mensing 777 N.W.2d 228 Minn. 2010
See, Nasseff v. Schoenecker, 312 Minn. 485, 490 , Polivka Logan Designers, Inc. v. Ende, 312 Minn. 171, 174-76 , -54 (1977).
Wallboard, Inc. v. St. Cloud Mall, LLC 758 N.W.2d 356 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
Wallboard, Inc. v. St. Cloud Mall, LLC 758 N.W.2d 356 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
Co., of Minneapolis, (holding that no mechanic’s lien can attach when landlord, renting his entire property to tenant, has no actual knowledge of improvements made to property); Nasseff v. Schoenecker, 312 Minn. 485, 492 , (holding that *360 mechanic’s lien can attach to landlord’s interest when landlord has knowledge of tenant-initiated improvements, landlord did not object, and contractor did not contract with subcontractors).
Wong v. Interspace-West, Inc. 701 N.W.2d 301 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
Wong v. Interspace-West, Inc. 701 N.W.2d 301 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
Nasseff v. Schoenecker, 312 Minn. 485, 490
Master Asphalt Co. v. Voss Construction Co. 535 N.W.2d 349 Minn. 1995
Master Asphalt Co. v. Voss Construction Co. 535 N.W.2d 349 Minn. 1995
Polivka Logan Designers, Inc. v. Ende, 312 Minn. 171, 174 , see also Nasseff v. Schoenecker, 312 Minn. 485
Berks v. Oberpriller 448 N.W.2d 883 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Berks v. Oberpriller 448 N.W.2d 883 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
See, e.g., Nasseff v. Schoenecker, 312 Minn. 485, 489 , (plumber, electrician and other suppliers protected by, liens where owner knew of remodeling improvements and tenant authorized to remodel property for restaurant use); Snell Sash & Door Co. v. Florsheim, 217 Minn. 21, 26 , (millworker, along with other c
MERLE'S CONST. CO., INC. v. Berg 442 N.W.2d 300 Minn. 1989
MERLE'S CONST. CO., INC. v. Berg 442 N.W.2d 300 Minn. 1989
Nasseff v. Schoenecker, 312 Minn. 485, 491
Berg v. Merle's Construction Co. 429 N.W.2d 686 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Berg v. Merle's Construction Co. 429 N.W.2d 686 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Pelletier Corp. v. Chas. M. Freidheim Co. 383 N.W.2d 318 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Pelletier Corp. v. Chas. M. Freidheim Co. 383 N.W.2d 318 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Nasseff v. Schoenecker, 312 Minn. 485, 490-91
Korsunsky Krank Erickson Architects, Inc. v. Walsh 370 N.W.2d 29 Minn. 1985
Korsunsky Krank Erickson Architects, Inc. v. Walsh 370 N.W.2d 29 Minn. 1985
Nasseff v. Schoenecker, 312 Minn. 485, 492
Korsunsky Krank Erickson Architects, Inc. v. Walsh 357 N.W.2d 144 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Korsunsky Krank Erickson Architects, Inc. v. Walsh 357 N.W.2d 144 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Karl Krahl Excavating Co. v. Goldman, 296 Minn. 324 , Nasseff v. Schoenecker, 312 Minn. 485
Dolder v. Griffin 323 N.W.2d 773 Minn. 1982
Dolder v. Griffin 323 N.W.2d 773 Minn. 1982
rity derives from the fact that improvements are visible, the purpose of prelien notice is “to protect an owner from hidden liens arising from labor or materials supplied to the contractor by subcontractors or materialmen who extended credit to the contractor on the security of the owner’s property and whose identities [are] unknown and often unascertainable by the owner.” Nasseff v. Schoenecker, 312 Minn. 485, 490-91
C. W. Stark Lumber Co. v. Sether 257 N.W.2d 556 Minn. 1977
C. W. Stark Lumber Co. v. Sether 257 N.W.2d 556 Minn. 1977
1 .This court recently stated in Nasseff v. Schoenecker, Minn., : “In 1973, the legislature, at the urging of the attorney general, sought to correct a problem then frequently faced by homeowners when they entered into contracts with building contractors for the improvement of their property.