Cited by

1979); see also Caldas v. Affordable Granite & Stone, Inc. , (“We have adopted the Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 302 (1981) to determine whether a beneficiary of a 8 promise is an intended beneficiary with legal rights under a contract or merely an incidental beneficiary with no legal rights.”), superseded by statute, 2013 Minn. Laws ch. 27, § 1, at

When the language of the law is unambiguous, our “role is to enforce the language of the statute and not explore the spirit or purpose of the law.” Caldas v. Affordable Granite & Stone, Inc.

“When a statute is unambiguous, our ‘role is to enforce the language of the statute and not explore the spirit or purpose of the law.’ ” Hagen, d at 169 (quoting Caldas v. Affordable Granite & Stone, Inc., ).

t]he managers may construct, clean, repair, alter, abandon, consolidate, reclaim, or change the course or terminus of any public ditch, drain, sewer, river, watercourse, natural or artificial, within the watershed district.” We consider our prior interpretations of a statute “in reviewing subsequent disputes over the meaning of the statute.” Caldas v. Affordable Granite & Stone, Inc., d 826, 836 (Minn. 2012).

We may consider our prior interpretations of a statute “in reviewing subsequent disputes over the meaning of the statute.” Caldas v. Affordable Granite & Stone, Inc.

See Herlache, d at 450 (when bringing an unjust enrichment claim, a “plaintiff must show that the defendant was enriched illegally or unlawfully or in a manner that is morally wrong” (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted)); Caldas v. Affordable Granite & Stone, Inc., (unjust enrichment “allows a plaintiff to recover a benefit conferred upon a defendant when retention of the benefit is not legally justifiable”); see also Herlache, d at 450 (recognizing that unjust enrichment develo

9 Caldas v. Affordable Granite & Stone, Inc.

E.g., Caldas v. Affordable Granite & Stone, Inc., see also Elm Creek, d at 739 (“Preaward interest decisions are reviewed de novo.” (quotation omitted)) .

The Minnesota Supreme Court has addressed the standard of review where, as here, a party has appealed from the grant of summary judgment “involving claims for equitable relief.” Caldas v. Affordable Granite & Stone, Inc., - 38 (Minn. 2012), superseded by statute on other grounds, Minn. Stat. § 181.13(a) (2020)

6 “Unjust enrichment is an equitable doctrine that allows a plaintiff to recover a benefit conferred upon a defendant when retention of the benefit is not legally justifiable.” Caldas v. Affordable Granite & Stone, Inc.

2 The supreme court has stated that “judicial construction of a statute becomes part of the statute as though written therein.” Caldas v. Affordable Granite & Stone, Inc.

“Unjust enrichment is an equitable doctrine that allows a plaintiff to recover a benefit conferred upon a defendant when retention of the benefit is not legally justifiable .” Caldas v. Affordable Granite & Stone, Inc.

Caldas v. Affordable Granite & Stone, Inc.

fire policy in Marshall and the rule of law articulated in Craigie have stood unchallenged— until now—fo r the last 60 years.5 “Once we have interpreted a statute, that prior interpretation ‘guides us in reviewing subsequent disputes over the meaning of the statute.’ ” Hagen v. Steven Scott Mgmt., Inc., (quoting Caldas v. Affordable Granite & Stone , Inc., ).

“Unjust enrichment is an equitable doctrine that allows a plaintiff to recover a benefit conferred upon a defendant when retention of the benefit is not legally justifiable.” Caldas v. Affordable Granite & Stone, Inc.

.” Caldas v. Affordable Granite & Stone, Inc., (considering the standard of review for equitable relief on summary judgment).

In the absence of ambiguity, we “enforce the agreement of the parties as expressed in the contract.” Caldas v. Affordable Granite & Stone, Inc., d 826, 832 (Minn. 2012).

Caldas v. Affordable Granite & Stone, Inc.

When a statute is unambiguous, our “role is to enforce the language of the statute and not explore the spirit or purpose of the law.” Caldas v. Affordable Granite & Stone, Inc. , see Minn. Stat. § 645.16 (2020).

Caldas v. Affordable Granite & Stone, Inc.

Caldas v. Affordable Granite & Stone, Inc.

6 Section 181.13 “is a timing statute that requires prompt payment of wages actually earned.” Caldas v. Affordable Granite & Stone, Inc.

Unjust enrichment “allows a plaintiff to recover a benefit conferred upon a defendant when retention of the bene fit is not legally justifiable.” Caldas v. Affordable Granite & Stone, Inc.

See, e.g., Caldas v. Affordable Granite & Stone, Inc., (limiting “the application of unjust enrichment to claims premised on an implied or quasi-contract between the claimant and the party alleged to be unjustly enriched”); Olson v. Synergistic Techs.

“We review the language of a contract to determine the intent of the parties.” Caldas v. Affordable Granite & Stone, Inc.

18 “Contract interpretation is a question of law that we review de novo.” Caldas v. Affordable Granite & Stone, Inc.

“When we conclude that a statute is unambiguous, our ‘role is to enforce the language of the statute and not explore the spirit or purpose of the law.’ ” Christianson, d at 537 (quoting Caldas v. Affordable Granite & Stone, Inc. , 6 (Minn. 2012)).

” Caldas v. Affordable Granite & Stone, Inc. , .

2, 1991); Caldas v. Affordable Granite & Stone, Inc., (de novo review of interpretation of contract).

Further, this case involves statutory interpretation and “judicial construction of a statute becomes part of the statute as though written therein.” Caldas v. Affordable Granite & Stone, Inc.

And “wages actually earned” are “defined by the employment contract between the employer and the employee.” Caldas v. Affordable Granite & Stone, Inc., (quotation omitted).

“To 6 establish an unjust enrichment claim, the claimant must show that the defendant has knowingly received or obtained something of value for which the defendant in equity and good conscience should pay.” Caldas v. Affordable Granite & Stone, Inc. , d 826, 838 (Minn. 2012) (quotation omitted).

We also independently analyze statutory language, Caldas v. Affordable Granite & Stone, Inc., and whether collateral estoppel precludes litigation of a claim

It is commonly referred to as a quasi-contract or a contract implied-in-law claim.” Caldas v. Affordable Granite & Stone, Inc.

to the particular wage claimed.” Caldas v. Affordable Granite & Stone, Inc. , Karlen v. Jones Lang LaSalle Americas, Inc. , 766 F.3d 863, 867 (8th Cir. 2014) (“Section 181.13 only applies if an employer owes an employee unpaid wages or commissions under the employment contract.”).

See Caldas v. Affordable Granite & Stone, Inc. , (affirming summary judgment on a breach-of-contract claim against non-parties to the contract that failed to establ ish that they were intended third-party beneficiaries of the contract).

Caldas v. Affordable Granite & Stone, Inc.

See Caldas v. Affordable Granite & Stone, Inc. , , 835 n.2 (Minn. 2012) ("We rest our conclusion on the ground that appellants' common law breach of contract claim fails because they have not established they are intended third-party beneficiaries of the contract."

Caldas v. Affordable Granite & Stone, Inc.

Caldas v. Affordable Granite & Stone, Inc.

Caldas v. Affordable Granite & Stone, Inc. , , 836 (Minn. 2012).

Caldas v. Affordable Granite & Stone, Inc ., , 836 (Minn. 2012).