Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Duxbury v. Spex Feeds, Inc., 681 N.W.2d 380.

27 citing documents.

All-American Ice L.L.C., d/b/a All-American Arena Products, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
Duxbury v. Spex Feeds, Inc., -91 (Minn. App. 2004), rev. denied (Minn. Aug.
James L. Lang, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
Duxbury v. Spex Feeds, Inc., rev. denied (Minn. Aug.
Eric John Blehr, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
Duxbury v. Spex Fees, I nc., review denied (Minn. Aug.
Ben Tahja, et al., Respondents, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
Pre-verdict interest may be 13 awarded “regardless of the ascertainability of the judgment.” Duxbury v. Spex Feeds, Inc., , review denied (Minn. Aug.
Bay Side Recycling Company LLC, et al., Appellants, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Whether a joint venture exists is generally a question of fact, but a district court may decide it as a matter of law i f “no competent evidence will support a finding of joint venture.” Duxbury v. Spex Feeds, Inc. , review denied (Minn. Aug.
William Miller, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
See Duxbury v. Spex Feeds, Inc., (“A bailment occurs when goods are delivered, without transferal of ownership, under an express or implied agreement that the goods will be returned.”), review denied (Minn. Aug.
Miller v. Soo Line R.R. Co. 925 N.W.2d 642 Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Miller v. Soo Line R.R. Co. 925 N.W.2d 642 Minn. Ct. App. 2019
See Duxbury v. Spex Feeds, Inc. , , 390-91 (Minn. App. 2004), review denied (Minn. Aug.
Nutripro Feeds, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Duxbury v. Spex Feeds, Inc. , review denied (Minn. Aug.
Allan Fishel, et al., Appellants, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
“The availability of pre [award] interest is a legal issue that we review de novo.” Duxbury v. Spex Feeds, Inc. , review denied (Minn. Aug.
James Poehler v. Cincinnati Insurance Company 874 N.W.2d 806 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Seagate Technology, LLC v. Western Digital Corporation, Sining Mao Minn. Ct. App. 2016
James Poehler v. Cincinnati Insurance Company 874 N.W.2d 806 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
No one, however, suggested that Cincinnati was untimely in making its payment after the appraisal process was completed.” 3 ANALYSIS A. Standard of Review “The availability of prejudgment interest is a legal issue that we review de novo.” Duxbury v. Spex Feeds, Inc., review denied (Minn. Aug.
Seagate Technology, LLC v. Western Digital Corporation, Sining Mao Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Duxbury v. Spex Feeds, Inc., review denied (Minn. Aug.
Soderberg & Vail, LLC v. Meshbesher & Spence, Ltd. Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Soderberg & Vail, LLC v. Meshbesher & Spence, Ltd. Minn. Ct. App. 2016
recovery, whether that recovery was nothing or the millions of dollars anticipated, did not constitute profit sharing.”); see also Duxbury v. Spex Feeds, Inc., (finding no joint 9 venture where an investor “was entitled to only a fixed percentage of [farmers’] surviving newborn pigs, regardless of whether the .
In re Minnwest Bank Litigation Concerning Real Property in Otsego, Minnesota, Minnwest Bank v. RTB, LLC 873 N.W.2d 135 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
In re Minnwest Bank Litigation Concerning Real Property in Otsego, Minnesota, Minnwest Bank v. RTB, LLC 873 N.W.2d 135 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
See, A & L Duxbury v. Spex Feeds, Inc., -91 (Minn. App. 2004), review denied (Minn. Aug.
John S. Drewitz v. Motorwerks, Inc. 867 N.W.2d 197 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
John S. Drewitz v. Motorwerks, Inc. 867 N.W.2d 197 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Duxbury v. Spex Feeds, Inc., review denied (Minn. Aug.
County of Hennepin v. 1010 Metrodome Square, LLC Minn. Ct. App. 2014
County of Hennepin v. 1010 Metrodome Square, LLC Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Duxbury v. Spex Feeds, Inc., review denied (Minn. Aug.
Arthur Allen Hogenson v. Michael W. Hogenson 852 N.W.2d 266 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Duxbury v. Spex Feeds, Inc., review denied (Minn. Aug.
Commonwealth Land Title Insurance Company v. Historic Ivy Tower, LLC Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Commonwealth Land Title Insurance Company v. Historic Ivy Tower, LLC Minn. Ct. App. 2014
The availability of prejudgment interest is a legal issue that we review de novo.” Duxbury v. Spex Feeds, Inc., 17 review denied (Minn. Aug.
DORSEY & WHITNEY LLP v. Grossman 749 N.W.2d 409 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
DORSEY & WHITNEY LLP v. Grossman 749 N.W.2d 409 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
Duxbury v. Spex Feeds, Inc., review denied (Minn. Aug.

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by