DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Cited by

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

83 citing documents.

Kristina Jean Powers v. Superintendent James Freihammer, in his official capacity Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Kristina Jean Powers v. Superintendent James Freihammer, in his official capacity Minn. Ct. App. 2016
On review of a district court’s grant of a motion to dismiss under rule 12.02(e), “we consider only the facts alleged in the complaint, accepting those facts as true.” Sipe v. STS Mfg., Inc., d 683, 686 (Minn. 2013) (quotation omitted).
Yvette Ford v. Minneapolis Public Schools 874 N.W.2d 231 Minn. 2016
Yvette Ford v. Minneapolis Public Schools 874 N.W.2d 231 Minn. 2016
We granted Ford’s petition and remanded the matter to the court of appeals for reconsideration in light of Sipe v. STS Manufacturing, Inc.
In the Matter of the Estate of: Mitzi M. Olson, a/k/a Mitzi Marie Olson, Decedent. Minn. Ct. App. 2015
In the Matter of the Estate of: Mitzi M. Olson, a/k/a Mitzi Marie Olson, Decedent. Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Teresa McDonald v. Allina Health System d/b/a United Hospital Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Teresa McDonald v. Allina Health System d/b/a United Hospital Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Cf. Sipe v. STS Mfg., Inc., (concluding that two-year statute of limitations, under Minn. Stat. § 541.07 (2012), “is limited to common law causes of action not created by statute”).
State of Minnesota by Lorie Afremov and Michael R. Afremov v. Anne L. Remes, Martha W. Gabbert Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota by Lorie Afremov and Michael R. Afremov v. Anne L. Remes, Martha W. Gabbert Minn. Ct. App. 2015
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).
Kristen Harne and Sheila Foster, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Kristen Harne and Sheila Foster, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Patrick M. Figgins v. Noah Wilcox, and Grand Rapids State Bank, defendant/counterclaimant and third party v. Patrick Figgins, … Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Patrick M. Figgins v. Noah Wilcox, and Grand Rapids State Bank, defendant/counterclaimant and third party v. Patrick Figgins, … Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Angeles v. Medtronic, Inc. 863 N.W.2d 404 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Paul v. Angeles, (A14-1149), Charlene Mead, (A14-1150), Charles Starovasnik, Jr., (A14-1151), Trudy Marse, (A14-1152), Rebecca Manuel, (A14-1153), Claude … Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Angeles v. Medtronic, Inc. 863 N.W.2d 404 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Paul v. Angeles, (A14-1149), Charlene Mead, (A14-1150), Charles Starovasnik, Jr., (A14-1151), Trudy Marse, (A14-1152), Rebecca Manuel, (A14-1153), Claude … Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Persigehl v. Ridgebrook Investments Ltd. Partnership 858 N.W.2d 824 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Persigehl v. Ridgebrook Investments Ltd. Partnership 858 N.W.2d 824 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
P. 12.02(e).” Sipe v. STS Mfg., Inc.
Jeff Persigehl and Samone Bodley, individually and on behalf of the putative classes, (A14-0027), (A14-0123) v. Ridgebrook Investments … Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Jeff Persigehl and Samone Bodley, individually and on behalf of the putative classes, (A14-0027), (A14-0123) v. Ridgebrook Investments … Minn. Ct. App. 2015
P. 12.02(e).” Sipe v. STS Mfg., Inc., d 683, 686 (Minn. 2013).
Yvette Ford v. Minneapolis Public Schools 857 N.W.2d 725 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Yvette Ford v. Minneapolis Public Schools 857 N.W.2d 725 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
OPINION PETERSON, Judge This whistleblower action is before us on remand from the supreme court for reconsideration in light of Sipe v. STS Mfg., Inc.
Darrel Schmitz v. United States Steel Corporation 852 N.W.2d 669 Minn. 2014
Sergey Porada, Yelena Kurdyumova v. Terry I. Monroe, Marc L. Kruger Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Sergey Porada, Yelena Kurdyumova v. Terry I. Monroe, Marc L. Kruger Minn. Ct. App. 2014
See Sipe v. STS Mfg., Inc., (stating that an appellate court assumes that the facts alleged in the complaint are true when it reviews a district court’s grant of a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted).
Michael Alan Mooney v. UnitedHealth Group Incorporated, Stephen L. Hemsley, William W. McGuire, David J. Lubben Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Michael Alan Mooney v. UnitedHealth Group Incorporated, Stephen L. Hemsley, William W. McGuire, David J. Lubben Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Capital Midwest Fund, LP v. Douglas E. Johnson, Steven Quay Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Capital Midwest Fund, LP v. Douglas E. Johnson, Steven Quay Minn. Ct. App. 2014
P. 12.02(e).” Sipe v. STS Mfg., Inc.
State v. Carlson 845 N.W.2d 827 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State v. Carlson 845 N.W.2d 827 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
“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).