Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Sipe v. STS Manufacturing, Inc., 834 N.W.2d 683.

83 citing documents.

MJ aka Elissa Wall v. Warren Jeffs, Seth Jeffs, et al Minn. Ct. App. 2026
Tonita Haire-Cochran v. 24 Restore, Inc. Minn. Ct. App. 2026
State of Minnesota v. Troy Ray Gibson Minn. Ct. App. 2026
Appellate courts “review de novo the construction and application of a statute of limitations, including the law governing the accrual of a cause of action.” (quoting Sipe v. STS Mfg., Inc., ), rev. denied (Minn. June 17, 2014); (“Statutory interpretation is a question of law, which we review de novo.”); (applying de novo review to statutory construction of Minnesota Statute
In re the Estate of Oria Albert Brinkmeier, Deceased Minn. Ct. App. 2026
In re the Estate of Oria Albert Brinkmeier, Deceased Minn. Ct. App. 2026
See Powell v. MVE Holdings, Inc., d 451, 460 (Minn. App. 2001) (stating “the existence and terms of a contract are questions for the fact finder” reviewed for clear error); see also Sipe v. STS Mfg., Inc., d 683, 686 (Minn. 2013) (stating the “application of a statute of limitations” is reviewed de novo).
Jaguar Communications, LLC (A25-0090) v. Daniel Petsinger (A25-0025) Minn. Ct. App. 2025
In so doing, we consider only the facts alleged in the complaint, accepting those facts as true.” Sipe v. STS Mfg., Inc. , (quotation and citation omitted).
Richard Preston Blackwell v. McDonald’s Staff, County of Dakota, City of Inver Grove Heights Minn. Ct. App. 2024
Appellate courts “review de novo the construction and application of a statute of limitations.” Sipe v. STS Mfg., Inc., (quotation omitted).
Lorenzo Reed, et al v. Westgate Investments, Inc. 8 N.W.3d 651 Minn. Ct. App. 2024
Lorenzo Reed, et al v. Westgate Investments, Inc. 8 N.W.3d 651 Minn. Ct. App. 2024
Will & Appt of the Estate of: William C. Mackey, Dec’d 7 N.W.3d 137 Minn. Ct. App. 2024
Will & Appt of the Estate of: William C. Mackey, Dec’d 7 N.W.3d 137 Minn. Ct. App. 2024
We review de novo “the construction and application of a statute of limitations.” Sipe v. STS Mfg., Inc., (quotation omitted).
Section 21 Southeast, LLC v. Seiffert Farm L.L.C., a Minnesota Limited Liability Company, Jeffery Seiffert, et al Minn. Ct. App. 2024
And construing all reasonable inferences in favor Section 21, as we are required to do, see Sipe v. STS Mfg., Inc., the statement that the property is “vacant or unoccupied” has a clear, nonlegal factual meaning.
James R. Martin, Patrick S. Martin v. Mid-America Festivals Corporation Minn. Ct. App. 2023
James R. Martin, Patrick S. Martin v. Mid-America Festivals Corporation Minn. Ct. App. 2023
Id.; see also Sipe v. STS Mfg., Inc.
Patrice V. Nerad v. Ryan Blair Magnus, Jones Law Office, LLC, a/k/a Jones and Magnus, Attorneys at Law Minn. Ct. App. 2023
Similarly, we “review de novo the construction and application of a statute of limitations, including the law governing the accrual of a cause of action.” Sipe v. STS Mfg., Inc., (quotation omitted); see also Hansen v. U. S. Bank Nat ’l Ass ’n, (“When a motion to dismiss is based on the running of a statute of limitations, we have followed this same general rule: look to the facts alleged in the complaint, accept those facts as true, and
Eddie Hudson, III v. Corvel Corporation, et al., Fields Law Office Ltd, et al., XL Specialty Insurance Company Minn. Ct. App. 2023
Similarly, we “review de novo the construction and application of a statute of limitations, including the law governing the accrual of a cause of action.” Sipe v. STS Mfg., Inc., (quotation omitted); see also Hansen v. U. S. Bank repeatedly emphasized that pro se litigants are generally held to the same standards as attorneys and must comply with court rules.” see also Heinsch v. Lot 27
Ali Alfureedy, et al v. City of Saint Paul Minn. Ct. App. 2023
Sipe v. STS Mfg., Inc., see Minn. R. Civ.
Thomas Shimota, B&T Automotive, Inc., et al v. Klemp & Stanton, PLLP, et al., Estate of Robert Shimota, … Minn. Ct. App. 2023
In so doing, [a reviewing court] consider[s] only the facts alleged in the complaint, accepting those facts as true.” Sipe v. STS Mfg., Inc., d 683, 686 (Minn. 2013) (quotation and citation omitted).
Susan Carol Sohn v. Dr. Paul Anthony Arbisi Minn. Ct. App. 2023
James L. Lang, et al v. Flagship Bank Minnesota f/d/b/a Landmark Community Bank, N.A., et al., Eric Knight, … Minn. Ct. App. 2023
In our review, we “consider only the facts alleged in the complaint, accepting those facts as true.” Sipe v. STS Mfg., Inc., (quotation omitted).
Patrick Dinneen v. Timothy Melby, et al., Add-Ventures, Inc. Minn. Ct. App. 2023
Appellate courts “consider only the facts alleged in the complaint, accepting those facts as true.” Sipe v. STS Mfg., Inc., (quotation omitted).
Jeffrey D. Kuhn v. Richard G. Dunn, et al Minn. Ct. App. 2023
10 Valspar Refinish, Inc. v. Gaylord ’s, Inc., -65 (Minn. 2009); Roemhildt v. Kristall Dev., Inc. , rev. denied (Minn. July 19, 2011); see also, e.g., Sipe v. STS Mfg., Inc., (applying a de novo standard of review to the decision to grant a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim); Montemayor v. Sebright Prods., Inc., (applying a de novo standard of review to the decision to grant a summary judgment motion).
Andres Lugo v. ProPharma PV, Inc., et al., Linden Capital Partners Minn. Ct. App. 2023
An appellate court “review[s] de novo the construction and application of a statute of limitations, including the law governing the accrual of a cause of action.” Sipe v. STS Mfg., Inc., (quotation omitted).
Troy K. Scheffler v. Brian Richard Helget, et al Minn. Ct. App. 2022
We “consider only the facts alleged in the complaint, accepting those facts as true.” Sipe v. STS Mfg., Inc., (quotation omitted).
Jason L. Gabbert v. Star Tribune Media Company, LLC, Gail Van Der Linden, and Susan Seim Minn. Ct. App. 2022
In so doing, we consider only the facts alleged in the complaint, accepting those facts as true.” Sipe v. STS Mfg., Inc., (quotation and citation omitted).
Doran 610 Apartments, LLC, et al v. State of Minnesota by and through its Governor Tim Walz, Attorney … Minn. Ct. App. 2022
Louis Reis v. City of Nisswa Minn. Ct. App. 2022
Id.; see also Sipe v. STS Mfg, Inc.
RSS Fridley, LLC, a Minnesota limited liability company, et al v. Northwestern Orthopaedic Surgeons Partnership, LLP, a Minnesota … Minn. Ct. App. 2022
In our de novo review of the grant of a motion to dismiss, “we C/D-2 consider only the facts alleged in the complaint, accepting those facts as true.” Sipe v. STS Mfg., Inc., (quotation omitted).
William M. Ross v. Dianne’s Custom Candles, LLC, et al Minn. Ct. App. 2021
We review de novo the district court’s decision on a motion to dismiss, considering “only the facts alleged in the complaint, [and] accepting those facts as true.” Sipe v. STS Mfg., Inc. , (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).
James Jesse Hunter v. Kim Coughlin, et al Minn. Ct. App. 2021
“In so doing, we consider only the facts alleged in the complaint, accepting those facts as true.” Sipe v. STS Mfg., Inc., (quotation omitted).
BDS Laundry Management Company, vs Haven, LLC, et al., ABC Corporation, et al Minn. Ct. App. 2021
Id.; see also Sipe v. STS Mfg, Inc.
Wayne Nicolaison v. Peter Puffer, et al Minn. Ct. App. 2021
Sipe v. STS Mfg, Inc., St.
Klingelhutz Judgment, LLC v. John D. Klingelhutz Minn. Ct. App. 2021
Sipe v. STS Mfg ., Inc., .
John Moore, Minn. 2021
We accordingly “consider only the facts alleged in the complaint, accepting those facts as true.” Sipe v. STS Mfg., Inc., (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted).
Great Plains Educational Foundation, Inc. v. Student Loan Finance Corporation, et al Minn. Ct. App. 2020
Appellate courts review the legal sufficiency of the claim for relief de novo, id., and “consider only the facts alleged in the 5 complaint, accepting those facts as true,” Sipe v. STS Mfg., Inc. , (quotation omitted).
Allstate Indemnity Company, et al v. Twin Cities Diagnostic Center, L.L.C., et al., Precision Toxicology, LLC, et al Minn. Ct. App. 2020
Jeremy D. Mount v. Allana M. Mount Minn. Ct. App. 2020
Sipe v. STS Mfg, Inc ., (citation omitted).
Joel S. Rabbe, et al v. Farmers State Bank of Trimont, et al., First Financial Bank in Winnebago, … Minn. Ct. App. 2020
“In doing so, we consider only the facts alleged in the complaint, accepting those facts as true.” Sipe v. STS Mfg, Inc., (quotation and citation omitted).
Blue Sky Real Estate, LLC v. Sunrise Banks, N.A., f/k/a University National Bank successor by merger with Park … Minn. Ct. App. 2020
P. 12.02(e)” and, in so doing, “consider only the fact s alleged in the complaint, accepting those facts as true.” Sipe v. STS Mfg., Inc., (quotation omitted).
Whitney Hinrichs-Cady v. Hennepin County Minn. Ct. App. 2020
In the Matter of: American Home Mortgage Assets Trust 2007-5 Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Jill Hansen, et al v. U. S. Bank National Association, as Special Administrator and Personal Representative of the … Minn. Ct. App. 2018
This court reviews “de novo the construction and application of a statute of limitations, including the law governing the accrual of a cause of action.” Sipe v. STS Mfg., Inc., (quotation omitted).
Paul Allen Bray v. Starbucks Corporation, et al Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Jayson Dock, et al v. Waconia Landing Homeowners Association, Inc. Minn. Ct. App. 2017
In re Medtronic, Inc. Shareholder Litigation 900 N.W.2d 401 Minn. 2017
In re Medtronic, Inc. Shareholder Litigation 900 N.W.2d 401 Minn. 2017
We review de novo the district court’s decision on a motion to dismiss, considering “only the facts alleged in the complaint, [and] accepting those facts as true.” Sipe v. STS Mfg., Inc., (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).
Robert Martin, et al v. A’BULAE, LLC, et al Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Robert Martin, et al v. A’BULAE, LLC, et al Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Kenneth S. Benigni v. St. Louis County, State of Minnesota, by Department of Human Services, Lake Superior Community … Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Kenneth S. Benigni v. St. Louis County, State of Minnesota, by Department of Human Services, Lake Superior Community … Minn. Ct. App. 2016
We review “de novo the construction and application of a statute of limitations, including the law governing the accrual of a cause of action.” Sipe v. STS Mfg., Inc., (quotation omitted).