Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Seagate Technology, LLC v. Western Digital Corporation, Sining Mao, 854 N.W.2d 750.

59 citing documents.

Advanced Engineering and Environmental Services, LLC, et al., Plaintiff, Minn. Ct. App. 2026
Corp., d 750, 760 (Minn. 2014).
At Home Apartments, L.L.C., Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2026
Corp., d 750, 759 (Minn. 2014) (quotation omitted).
Joseph Dixon, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2026
Corp., -61 (Minn. 2014) (quotation omitted).
Cleveland-Cliffs Minnesota Land Development LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
Corp., -58 (Minn. 2014).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
en the Legislature uses limiting or modifying language in one part of a statute, but omits it in another, we regard that omission as intentional and will not add those same words of limitation or modification to parts of the statute where they were not used.” General Mills, 11 see also Seagate Tech, (“[A] condition expressly mentioned in one clause of a subdivision provides evidence that the Legislature did not intend for the condition to apply to other clauses in which the condition is not stat
Charles Schwab & Co., Inc., a corporation, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
Hennepin Healthcare System, Inc., Minn. 2023
Minn. 2022
Corp., (noting that “a condition expressly mentioned in one clause of a subdivision provides evidence that the Legislature did not intend for the condition to apply to other clauses in which the condition is not stated”).
In the Matter of the Welfare of: A. J. S., Child. Minn. Ct. App. 2022
“[D]istinctions in language in the same context are presumed to be intentional.” Seagate Tech., (quotation omitted).
Hennepin Healthcare System, Inc., Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
In the Matter of V & J Farm, LLC and the Commissioner of North Fork Crow River Watershed … Minn. Ct. App. 2022
Linden Place Villas Homeowner’s Association, petitioner, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
Bennett & Koch Construction, LLC, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
Eric F. Netter, et al., Respondents, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
Corp. , (quotation omitted).
Robbie Nelson, et al., Respondents, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
Seagate Tech., see Minn. Stat. § 572B.23 (2020) (listing permissible grounds for vacating an arbitration award).
Special School District No.1, Minneapolis Public Schools, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
An ar bitrator’s award may also be overturned if the arbitrator “clearly exceeded the powers granted to them in the arbitration agreement.” Seagate Tech., -61 (Minn. 2014) (emphasis in original).
In the Matter of the Petition of Valet Living for a Declaration that Interpretation Titled Corridor Trash Collection … Minn. Ct. App. 2021
Seagate Tech., LLC v. W. Digital Corp.
Rashed Ferdous, et al., Respondents, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
Corp. , -61 (Minn. 2014) (quotation omitted).
Minn. 2020
Faith Technologies, Inc., Respondent, Biosar America, LLC, Respondent, Frattalone Companies, Inc., et al., Plaintiffs, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
But we assess the scope of an arbitrator’s authority, including assessments of arbitrability, de novo.1 See Seagate Tech., LLC v. W. Digital Corp. , -61 (Minn. 2014).
Catherine Marie Schaefer, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
Seagate Tech., LLC v. W. Digital Corp ., (interpretation of statute); (application of a statute to undisputed facts “involves a legal conclusion we review de novo”).
TMT Management Group, LLC, et al., Appellants, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
Gen. Mills, Inc. v. Comm'r Revenue 931 N.W.2d 791 Minn. 2019
Gen. Mills, Inc. v. Comm'r Revenue 931 N.W.2d 791 Minn. 2019
See Seagate Tech., LLC v. W. Digital Corp. , , 759 (Minn. 2014) (noting that "a condition expressly mentioned in one clause of a subdivision provides evidence that the Legislature did not intend for the condition to apply to other clauses in which the condition is not stated" and that we "cannot add words or meaning to a statute that were intentionally or inadve
State v. Rogers 912 N.W.2d 687 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State v. Rogers 912 N.W.2d 687 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Corp. , , 759 (Minn. 2014) ("[A] condition expressly mentioned in one clause of a subdivision provides evidence that the Legislature did not intend for the condition to apply to other clauses in which the condition is not stated.").
Ricky Johnson, d/b/a Rick Johnson’s Deer and Beaver, Inc., Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Corp., (quotation omitted).
St. Jude Medical, Inc. v. Carter 899 N.W.2d 869 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
St. Jude Medical, Inc. v. Carter 899 N.W.2d 869 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Fern Hill Place Retail Association, Inc. v. Fern Hill Place Homeowners Association, Inc. Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Fern Hill Place Retail Association, Inc. v. Fern Hill Place Homeowners Association, Inc. Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Corp., –61 (Minn. 2014) (quotation omitted).
Daniel L. Berglund, Relator v. Commissioner of Revenue 877 N.W.2d 780 Minn. 2016
Daniel L. Berglund, Relator v. Commissioner of Revenue 877 N.W.2d 780 Minn. 2016
See Seagate Tech., (noting that “a condition expressly mentioned in one clause of a subdivision provides evidence that the Legislature did not intend for the condition to apply to other clauses in which the condition is not stated”); see also N. States Power Co. v. Comm’r of Revenue, -76 (Minn. 1
State of Minnesota v. Justin Lee Armstrong Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Justin Lee Armstrong Minn. Ct. App. 2016
See Seagate Tech, (discussing this principle as one of contract law).
Seagate Technology, LLC v. Western Digital Corporation, Sining Mao Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Seagate Technology, LLC v. Western Digital Corporation, Sining Mao Minn. Ct. App. 2016
See Seagate Tech., -57 (Minn. 2014), aff’g
328 Barry Avenue, LLC v. Nolan Properties Group, LLC 871 N.W.2d 745 Minn. 2015
328 Barry Avenue, LLC,Appellant v. Nolan Properties Group, LLC, and third party v. Carciofini Company, third party Marvin … Minn. 2015
328 Barry Avenue, LLC v. Nolan Properties Group, LLC 871 N.W.2d 745 Minn. 2015
Corp., (stating that “a condition expressly mentioned in one clause of a subdivision provides evidence that the Legislature did not intend for the condition to apply to other clauses in which the condition is not stated”); -29 (Minn.2008) (stating that “distinctions in lan
328 Barry Avenue, LLC,Appellant v. Nolan Properties Group, LLC, and third party v. Carciofini Company, third party Marvin … Minn. 2015
Corp., (stating that “a condition expressly mentioned in one clause of a subdivision provides evidence that the Legislature did not intend for the condition to apply to other clauses in which the condition is not stated”); -29 (Minn. 2008) (stating that “distinctions i
Real Time Translation, Inc., d/b/a RTT Mobile Interpretation v. i.wi, LLC, Selle Management, Inc. Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Real Time Translation, Inc., d/b/a RTT Mobile Interpretation v. i.wi, LLC, Selle Management, Inc. Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Ruth Unger v. AAA Insurance Company Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Michael A. Knight v. Sean K. McGinity 868 N.W.2d 298 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Ruth Unger v. AAA Insurance Company Minn. Ct. App. 2015
in favor of the finality and validity of the award.” Seagate Tech.
Michael A. Knight v. Sean K. McGinity 868 N.W.2d 298 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
“[Appellate courts] review the interpretation of a statute de novo.” Seagate Tech.
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 county maintains that the plain language of the exception “was meant only to exempt claims of negligence from the ten year statute of repose, not other tort claims.” “[Appellate courts] review the interpretation of a statute de novo.” Seagate Tech.
Kenneth A. Roseland v. Joseph A. Wentzell, Attorney at Law, Richard L. Kusick, and Roseland Acres, LLC, third … 864 N.W.2d 356 Minn. Ct. App. 2015