Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite In re Individual 35W Bridge Litigation, 806 N.W.2d 811.

27 citing documents.

State of Minnesota Office of the Attorney General v. Madison Equities, Inc. Minn. 2026
State of Minnesota Office of the Attorney General v. Madison Equities, Inc. Minn. 2026
In re Individual 35W Bridge Litig., 54 C.J.S.
James Jurgensen, Relator, vs. Dave Perkins Contracting, Inc., and TBG Claims Services, Respondents Minn. 2025
James Jurgensen, Relator, vs. Dave Perkins Contracting, Inc., and TBG Claims Services, Respondents Minn. 2025
In re Individual 35W Bridge Litig.
Steven Dahl, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
Andrew Geist, individually and as parent and natural guardian of minor, T.G., Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
“The elements of contribution are common liability of joint tortfeasors to an injured party and the payment by one of the tortfeasors of more than his share of that liability.” In re Individual 35W Bridge Litig., (quotation om itted).
Diane Mast, et al., Respondents, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
“We consider only those facts alleged in the 6 complaint, accepting those facts as true and construing all reasonable inferences in favor of the non-moving party.” In re Individual 35W Bridge Litigation
Wesley E. Wills, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
” In re Individual 35W Bridge Litig .
Andrew Carufel, et al., Appellants, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
In re Individual 35W Bridge Litigation, 2 I. The MGDPA claims against the state A. MGDPA claim related to location data The MGDPA provides that the government’s collection of data on individuals must be limited to only what is necessary to effectuate a government program.
Chester Vernon Jones, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
In re Individual 35W Bridge Litig., (stating that appellate courts review dismissals under rule 12.02(e) de novo).
David Brian Pemrick v. Lori Ann Bucher Minn. Ct. App. 2017
David Brian Pemrick v. Lori Ann Bucher Minn. Ct. App. 2017
“[Appellate courts] consider only those facts alleged in the complaint, accepting those facts as true and construing all reasonable inferences in favor of the non-moving party.” In re Individual 35W Bridge Litig.
Wayne Nicolaison v. Kevin Moser, Director of Minnesota Sex Offender Program Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Wayne Nicolaison v. Kevin Moser, Director of Minnesota Sex Offender Program Minn. Ct. App. 2016
“[Appellate courts] consider only those facts alleged in the complaint, accepting those facts as true and construing all reasonable inferences in favor of the non- moving party.” In re Individual 35W Bridge Litig.
In re the Estate of: Barbara Jean LaPoint Minn. Ct. App. 2015
In re the Estate of: Barbara Jean LaPoint Minn. Ct. App. 2015
“Contribution is an equitable remedy that allows one who has discharged more than his fair share of a common liability or burden to recover from another who is also liable the proportionate share which the other should pay or bear.” In re Individual 35W Bridge Litig., (quotation omitted).
Doug Blaine v. City of Sartell, County of Stearns 865 N.W.2d 723 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Doug Blaine v. City of Sartell, County of Stearns 865 N.W.2d 723 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
The above-italicized language in section 541.051, subdivision 1(a), constitutes a statute of repose because it “limits the time in which a party can acquire a cause of action.” In re Individual 35W Bridge Litig., –16 (Minn. 2011).
Judy Brown v. Judith M. Lee 859 N.W.2d 836 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Judy Brown v. Judith M. Lee 859 N.W.2d 836 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
I. “Contribution is an equitable remedy that allows one who has discharged more than his fair share of a common liability or burden to recover from another who is also liable the proportionate share which the other should pay or bear.” In re Individual 35W Bridge Litig., (quotation omitted).
Graphic Communications Local 1B Health & Welfare Fund "A", Respondents/Cross-Appellants v. CVS Caremark Corporation, Appellants/Cross-Respondents, Coborn's Incorporated, Appellant/Cross-Respondent, … 850 N.W.2d 682 Minn. 2014
Graphic Communications Local 1B Health & Welfare Fund "A", Respondents/Cross-Appellants v. CVS Caremark Corporation, Appellants/Cross-Respondents, Coborn's Incorporated, Appellant/Cross-Respondent, … 850 N.W.2d 682 Minn. 2014
In re Individual 35W Bridge Litig.
Anderson v. Commissioner of Health 811 N.W.2d 162 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
Anderson v. Commissioner of Health 811 N.W.2d 162 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
See In re Individual 35W Bridge Litigation
In re Individual 35W Bridge Litigation 806 N.W.2d 820 Minn. 2011
In re Individual 35W Bridge Litigation 806 N.W.2d 820 Minn. 2011
In a companion case, In re Individual 35W Bridge Litigation, -17, 820 (Minn.2011), we concluded that the fifteen-year repose period in the 1980 version of the statute of repose applied to similar causes of action related to the Bridge collapse, that the repose period for these causes of action expired in 1982, and that the 2007 amendments to section 541.051 do not retroacti
In Re the Welfare of S.S.E. 629 N.W.2d 456 Minn. Ct. App. 2001