Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Calder v. City of Crystal, 318 N.W.2d 838.

76 citing documents.

Jacquelyn Karre, et al., Plaintiffs, Minn. Ct. App. 2026
The supreme court noted that the case was unlike other indemnity cases because the parties were not joint tortfeasors —the owner was not liable 6 however, Calder also dealt with the application of statutes of limitations regarding common-law indemnity and contribution claims, not a contract dispute, and it does not apply here.
Shields Law Group, LLC, Spencer Shields v. Gustafson Gluek PLLC, Watts ... Minn. Ct. App. 2026
Shields Law Group, LLC, Spencer Shields v. Gustafson Gluek PLLC, Watts ... Minn. Ct. App. 2026
Minn. 2019
See Calder v. City of Crystal , (“ ‘When a right is dependent on a contingency, the cause of action accrues and the statute begins to run on the date of the happening of the contingency.’ ” ()); Bachertz v. Hayes -Lucas Lumber Co. , 275 N.W.
Paul King, et al., Appellants, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
See Calder v. City of Crystal
Great N. Ins. Co. v. Honeywell Int'l, Inc. 911 N.W.2d 510 Minn. 2018
Great N. Ins. Co. v. Honeywell Int'l, Inc. 911 N.W.2d 510 Minn. 2018
Sartori v. Harnischfeger Corp. , , 454 (Minn. 1988) (recognizing that the statute protects architects, designers, and contractors); see Calder v. City of Crystal , , 843 (Minn. 1982) (recognizing that the statute protects manufacturers).
In Re Individual 35w Bridge Litigation 787 N.W.2d 643 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
In Re Individual 35w Bridge Litigation 787 N.W.2d 643 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
See 1980 Minn. Laws ch. 518, §§ 2-3, at 595-96; (characterizing the 1980 amendments as an attempt to cure the statute’s constitutional defects).
Fleeger v. Wyeth 771 N.W.2d 524 Minn. 2009
Fleeger v. Wyeth 771 N.W.2d 524 Minn. 2009
ocedural aspects,” they are “primarily procedural laws”); City of Willmar v. Short-Elliott-Hendrickson, Inc., (“[A] statute of limitations does not negate liability; it is only a procedural device that is raised after the events giving rise to liability have occurred, and which precludes the plaintiff from collecting on that liability.”); (describing a statute of limitations as “procedural”); State ex rel Moser v. Kami, 181 Minn. 523, 527 , 233 N.W.
Christian v. Birch 763 N.W.2d 50 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
Christian v. Birch 763 N.W.2d 50 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
Co., , 361 n. 7 (Minn.1998) (noting that “we have consistently regarded statutes of limitation as primarily procedural laws”); City of Willmar v. Short-Elliott-Hendrickson, *58 Inc., (describing the statute of limitations as a “procedural device” in an indemnity case); (same); Klimmek v. Indep.
Weston v. McWilliams & Associates, Inc. 716 N.W.2d 634 Minn. 2006
Weston v. McWilliams & Associates, Inc. 716 N.W.2d 634 Minn. 2006
Brink v. Smith Companies Construction, Inc. 703 N.W.2d 871 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
Brink v. Smith Companies Construction, Inc. 703 N.W.2d 871 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
Bunce v. A.P.I., Inc. 696 N.W.2d 852 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
Bunce v. A.P.I., Inc. 696 N.W.2d 852 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
(quoting Grothe v. Shaffer, 305 Minn. 17, 23-24 , ).
Weston v. McWilliams & Associates, Inc. 694 N.W.2d 558 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
Weston v. McWilliams & Associates, Inc. 694 N.W.2d 558 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
-43 (Minn.1982) (reviewing history of enactment and alteration of provision).
Olmanson v. LeSueur County 693 N.W.2d 876 Minn. 2005
Olmanson v. LeSueur County 693 N.W.2d 876 Minn. 2005
Act of April 7, 1980, ch. 518, §§ 2-4, 1980 Minn. Laws 595 -96; -43 (Minn.1982).
Brua v. Olson 621 N.W.2d 472 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
Brua v. Olson 621 N.W.2d 472 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
see In re Estate of Bush, 302 Minn. 188, 207 , (stating that supreme court dicta is entitled to “considerable weight” if it contains “an expression of the opinion of the court”).
KENNECOTT HOLDINGS v. Liberty Mut. Ins. 578 N.W.2d 358 Minn. 1998
KENNECOTT HOLDINGS v. Liberty Mut. Ins. 578 N.W.2d 358 Minn. 1998
See City of Willmar v. Short-Elliott-Hendrickson, Inc., Klimmek v. Independent School District No. 487
Boyum v. Main Entree, Inc. 535 N.W.2d 389 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
Boyum v. Main Entree, Inc. 535 N.W.2d 389 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
Williams v. Tweed 520 N.W.2d 515 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
City of Willmar v. Short-Elliott-Hendrickson, Inc. 498 N.W.2d 766 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
City of Willmar v. Short-Elliott-Hendrickson, Inc. 498 N.W.2d 766 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
There, this court noted that the legislature may abrogate a common law right without providing an alternative remedy if it is pursuing a “legitimate legislative objective.” Agassiz, d at 786 (citing Calder v, City of Crystal, ).
Ritter v. Abbey-Etna MacHine Co. 483 N.W.2d 91 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
Ritter v. Abbey-Etna MacHine Co. 483 N.W.2d 91 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
Arden Hills North Homes Ass'n v. Pemtom, Inc. 475 N.W.2d 495 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
Arden Hills North Homes Ass'n v. Pemtom, Inc. 475 N.W.2d 495 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
.1987) (explosion caused by defective switchboard); Bulan v. Hector Plumbing & Heating Co., (fire caused by defective fireplace); (flooding caused by defective sewage system); (electric shock caused by defective transformer vault); (flooding caused by defective drainage system); Capitol Supply Co. v. City of St.
Housing & Redevelopment Authority for Crookston v. Agassiz Construction, Inc. 476 N.W.2d 781 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
Housing & Redevelopment Authority for Crookston v. Agassiz Construction, Inc. 476 N.W.2d 781 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
Patton v. Yarrington 472 N.W.2d 157 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
Patton v. Yarrington 472 N.W.2d 157 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
Minnesota Landmarks v. M.A. Mortenson Co. 466 N.W.2d 413 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
Minnesota Landmarks v. M.A. Mortenson Co. 466 N.W.2d 413 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
the supreme court discussed whether the 1980 version cured the constitutional defects of the prior version.
Western Lake Superior Sanitary District v. Orfei & Sons, Inc. 463 N.W.2d 781 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
Western Lake Superior Sanitary District v. Orfei & Sons, Inc. 463 N.W.2d 781 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
Capitol Supply Co. v. City of St.
Hartford Fire Insurance Co. v. Westinghouse Electric Corp. 450 N.W.2d 183 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
Hartford Fire Insurance Co. v. Westinghouse Electric Corp. 450 N.W.2d 183 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
The supreme court has said that corrective amendments to section 541.051 “close[d] the door to objection to the statute on equal protection grounds.”
E.S.P., Inc. v. Midway National Bank of St. Paul 447 N.W.2d 882 Minn. 1989
E.S.P., Inc. v. Midway National Bank of St. Paul 447 N.W.2d 882 Minn. 1989
See, (contribution case wherein rule cited); Altermatt v. Arlan’s Dep’t Stores, 284 Minn. 537, 538 , (indemnity).
Snyder v. City of Minneapolis 441 N.W.2d 781 Minn. 1989
Snyder v. City of Minneapolis 441 N.W.2d 781 Minn. 1989
We have considered a similar remedy clause challenge to a statute and stated, “the legislature [may] constitutionally abrogate a common-law right without providing a reasonable substitute if it is pursuing a permissible, legitimate legislative objective.” citing Tri-State Ins.

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by