Cited by

No. 347, d 321, 332 (Minn. 2010).

347, (stating that a party may on appeal “stress any sound reason for affirmance” (quotation omitted)).

347, ) (“We have held that respondents need not file a notice 6 For the purposes of appeal, we will assume without deciding that Krsnak had a “legal or equitable obligation to communicate” the omitted facts to Hoskin.

347, –32 (Minn. 2010) (explaining that a respondent only needs to file a notice of review when an issue is decided adversely to the respondent).

347, 18 (permitting a party to “stress any sound reason for affirmance” (quotation omitted)).

347, 7 (“[W]here a party litigated two separate grounds .

347, (quoting Penn Anthracite Mining Co. v. Clarkson Sec.

347, (explaining that a respondent must seek review “to challenge an order that the district court entered that was adverse to” that party “even where the final judgment is entirely” in the party’s favor).

347, & n.6 (Minn. 2010).

347 , , 327 n.7 (Minn. 2010).

347 , , 325 (Minn. 2010).

347, (stating that when a party argues two grounds for relief and the district court’s decision is based on only one, the party can “stress any sound reason for affirmance” on appeal even if not the one relied on by the district court); see also SCI Minn. Funeral Servs., 14 Inc. v. Washburn -McRea

347 , , 334 (Minn. 2010) (acknowledging that knowledge of an agent is knowledge of the principal); Lebanon Sav.

347, (concluding that statute of limitations barred a construction -defect claim begun in 2006 when school district was aware of leakage problem well before 2004).

347, (a respondent on appeal may stress any sound reason for affirmance).