Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Weston v. McWilliams & Associates, Inc., 716 N.W.2d 634.

103 citing documents.

State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, (A13-2176), GEICO Insurance Company, (A14-0167) v. Metropolitan Council, Lashandra Scott, (A13-2176), Adelfa … Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Weston v. McWilliams & Assocs.
State v. Garcia-Gutierrez 844 N.W.2d 519 Minn. 2014
State v. Garcia-Gutierrez 844 N.W.2d 519 Minn. 2014
The rule discussed in Wegener is “not available to override the plain language of a clear and unambiguous statute, except in an exceedingly rare case in which the plain meaning of the statute ‘utterly confounds’ the clear legislative purpose of the statute.” (citing Weston v. McWilliams & Assocs., Inc., ).
Rosso v. Hallmark Homes of Minneapolis, Inc. 843 N.W.2d 798 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Rosso v. Hallmark Homes of Minneapolis, Inc. 843 N.W.2d 798 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
See Weston v. McWilliams & Assocs., Inc., (accepting as an undisputed fact that construction was substantially completed when the certificate of occupancy was issued).
Doe 175 ex rel. Doe 175 v. Columbia Heights School District, ISD No. 13 842 N.W.2d 38 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Doe 175 ex rel. Doe 175 v. Columbia Heights School District, ISD No. 13 842 N.W.2d 38 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
v. Anda, , 363 n. 6 (Minn.2007); Weston v. McWilliams & Assoc., Inc., Oanes, d at 403 , 407 n. 4; State ex rel.
Graves v. Wayman 816 N.W.2d 655 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
Graves v. Wayman 816 N.W.2d 655 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
But appellate courts also have “the latitude to address any matter as the interest of justice may require.” Weston v. McWilliams & Assocs., Inc., (quotation omitted); see Minn. R. Civ.App.
Gallaher v. Titler 812 N.W.2d 897 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
Gallaher v. Titler 812 N.W.2d 897 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
See Weston v. McWilliams & Assocs., Inc., (“[A] statute of limitations limits the time within which a party can pursue a remedy ...
Schatz v. Interfaith Care Center 811 N.W.2d 643 Minn. 2012
Schatz v. Interfaith Care Center 811 N.W.2d 643 Minn. 2012
Weston v. McWilliams & Assocs., Inc., (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted) (applying the plain language of a statute of repose even though it would necessarily foreclose some claims); Hyatt v. Anoka Police Dep’t, -28 (Minn.2005) (refusing to conclude that the dog bite statute was inapplicable to police
Zimbovskiy v. Union Pacific Railroad 812 N.W.2d 867 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
Zimbovskiy v. Union Pacific Railroad 812 N.W.2d 867 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
Rohmiller v. Hart 811 N.W.2d 585 Minn. 2012
Rohmiller v. Hart 811 N.W.2d 585 Minn. 2012
at 442 (citing Weston v. McWilliams & Assocs., Inc., ); see also Hyatt v. Anoka Police Dep’t, -28 (Minn.2005); Mut.
Cisar v. Slyter 812 N.W.2d 151 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
Cisar v. Slyter 812 N.W.2d 151 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
When, as here, “the district court grants summary judgment based on the application of a statute to undisputed facts, the result is a legal conclusion that we review de novo.” Weston v. McWilliams & Assocs., Inc.
In re Individual 35W Bridge Litigation 806 N.W.2d 820 Minn. 2011
In re Individual 35W Bridge Litigation 806 N.W.2d 811 Minn. 2011
In re Individual 35W Bridge Litigation 806 N.W.2d 811 Minn. 2011
Weston v. McWilliams & Assoc., Inc.
In re Individual 35W Bridge Litigation 806 N.W.2d 820 Minn. 2011
Jacobs relies on Weston v. McWilliams & Assoc., to argue that it has a protectable property right in a statute of repose defense.
Pepper v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. 806 N.W.2d 94 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
Pepper v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. 806 N.W.2d 94 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
“When the district court grants summary judgment based on the application of a statute to undisputed facts, the result is a legal conclusion that we review de novo.” Weston v. McWilliams & As-socs:, Inc.
Curtis v. Altria Group, Inc. 792 N.W.2d 836 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
Curtis v. Altria Group, Inc. 792 N.W.2d 836 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
“When the district court grants summary judgment based on the application of a statute to undisputed facts, the result is a legal conclusion that we review de novo.” Weston v. McWilliams & Assocs.
Tierney v. Arrowhead Concrete Works, Inc. 791 N.W.2d 540 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
Tierney v. Arrowhead Concrete Works, Inc. 791 N.W.2d 540 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
See Weston v. McWil-liams & Assocs., Inc., (stating that application of a statute to undisputed facts results in a legal con-elusion reviewed de novo).
Somsen, Mueller, Lowther & Franta, PA v. Estates of Olsen 790 N.W.2d 194 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
Somsen, Mueller, Lowther & Franta, PA v. Estates of Olsen 790 N.W.2d 194 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
“When the district court grants summary judgment based on the application of a statute to undisputed facts, the result is a legal conclusion that we review de novo.” Weston v. McWilliams & Assocs., Inc.
In Re Individual 35w Bridge Litigation 786 N.W.2d 890 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
In Re Individual 35w Bridge Litigation 787 N.W.2d 643 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
In Re Individual 35w Bridge Litigation 786 N.W.2d 890 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
Weston v. McWilliams & Assocs., (alterations in original) (quoting 51 Am.Jur.2d Limitation of Actions § 18 (2000)).
In Re Individual 35w Bridge Litigation 787 N.W.2d 643 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
In 2006, the Minnesota Supreme Court decided Weston v. McWilliams & Assocs., Inc.
Eagan Economic Development Authority v. U-Haul Co. of Minnesota 787 N.W.2d 523 Minn. 2010
Eagan Economic Development Authority v. U-Haul Co. of Minnesota 787 N.W.2d 523 Minn. 2010
Weston v. McWilliams & Assocs., Frank’s Nursery Sales, cf. Hursh v. Village of Long Lake, 247 Minn. 1, 5 , (interpreting a municipal resolution to decide if it conformed to statutory requirements).
Freeman v. Swift 776 N.W.2d 485 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
Freeman v. Swift 776 N.W.2d 485 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
Weston v. McWilliams & Assocs., Inc.
Fleeger v. Wyeth 771 N.W.2d 524 Minn. 2009
Fleeger v. Wyeth 771 N.W.2d 524 Minn. 2009
See Weston v. McWilliams & As socs., Inc., (noting that “statutes of limitations are procedural in nature,” as opposed to statutes of repose which are substantive); Kennecott Holdings Corp. v. Liberty Mut.
In Re the Risk Level Determination of G.G. 771 N.W.2d 64 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
In Re the Risk Level Determination of G.G. 771 N.W.2d 64 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
§ 645.16; see also Weston v. McWilliams & Assocs., Inc., (stating that the presumption that the legislature did not intend an absurd result cannot generally be used to override the plain language of a statute); Hyatt v. Anoka Police Dep’t, -28 (Minn.2005) (“We concluded that we could disregard a statute’s plain meaning only in rare cases
Metro Gold, Inc. v. Coin 757 N.W.2d 924 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
Metro Gold, Inc. v. Coin 757 N.W.2d 924 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
“When the district court grants summary judgment based on the application of a statute to undisputed facts, the result is a legal conclusion that we review de novo.” Weston v. McWilliams & Assocs., Inc., (citing Lefto v. Hoggsbreath Enters., Inc., ).
Sletto v. Wesley Construction, Inc. 733 N.W.2d 838 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
Sletto v. Wesley Construction, Inc. 733 N.W.2d 838 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
See Weston v. McWilliams & Assocs., Inc., (affirming district court’s dismissal of homebuilder’s contribution and indemnity claim because claim had not accrued and was not brought within ten-year period).
Stone v. Jetmar Properties, LLC 733 N.W.2d 480 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
Stone v. Jetmar Properties, LLC 733 N.W.2d 480 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
Weston v. McWilliams & Assocs., Inc.
State v. Boehl 726 N.W.2d 831 Minn. Ct. App. 2007