Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Arthur Allen Hogenson v. Michael W. Hogenson, 852 N.W.2d 266.

26 citing documents.

Lee Michael Scheurer v. Douglas Shrewsbury as Special Administrator for the Estate of Ann Maland, Deceased,... Minn. Ct. App. 2024
Lee Michael Scheurer v. Douglas Shrewsbury as Special Administrator for the Estate of Ann Maland, Deceased,... Minn. Ct. App. 2024
Ming Le Lu, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2024
In re the Marriage of: Michelle Beth Kremer v. Robbie Michael Kremer Minn. Ct. App. 2024
In re the Marriage of: Michelle Beth Kremer v. Robbie Michael Kremer Minn. Ct. App. 2024
We review de novo a district court’s decision regarding whether to grant interest under Minn. Stat. § 549.09 (2014).1 (stating that we review application of section 549.09 de novo); d 266, 272 (Minn. App. 2014) (concerning prejudgment interest).
Elm Creek Courthome Association, Inc., Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
A valid offer of settlement “must be in writing and must offer, in sufficiently clear and definite terms, to dispose completely the claims between the negotiating parties.”
In re the Estate of: Minn. Ct. App. 2022
When a district court is presented with an argument and does not rule on it, “we assume the argument was implicitly rejected.”
Mary Skarsten-Dinerman, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
See Hogenson v. Hogenson , (“B ecause this argument was presented to the district court, but the district court did not issue a ruling on it, we assume the argument was implicitly rejected when the district court granted [the opposing party’s] motion.
Joseph Roach, et al., Appellants, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
The Roaches counter that there is nothing in the plain language of the statute that requires damages to be “readily ascertaina ble.” They also cite our language in Hogenson v. Hogenson, stating that “there is no requirement under section 549.09 that the damages be readily ascertainable.” (quotation omitted).
Eric John Blehr, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
Ben Tahja, et al., Respondents, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
1(b) .” Hogenson v. Hogenson
Gaddisee Gemeda Bedasso, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Carney Lien, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
(stating that “[t]he district court’s decision to deny a motion to add a claim for punitive damages is reviewed for an a buse of discretion.”); aff’d
James C. Holmes, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
See Hogenson v. Hogenson , (“Because this argument was presented to the district court, but the district court did not issue a ruling on it, we assume the argument was implicitly rejected when the district court granted [opponent]’s motion.”).
Gregg Andersen, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Owners argues that (1) this court’s d 266 (Minn. App. 2014), dictates that Minn. Stat. § 3 34.01 (2016) applies to commercial 4 insurance-policy claims; (2) if not section 334 .01, Minn. Stat. § 60A.0811 (2016) instead applies to commercial-insurance-policy claims; and (3) Minn. Stat. § 549.09 does not apply because appraisal proceedings are not arbitrat
K & R Landholdings, LLC, d/b/a High Banks Resort, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
And recently, in Hogenson v. Hogenson , this court stated that section 549.09 “was meant to supplement, not replace, the existing law on preverdict interest.”
Nutripro Feeds, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Minn. Stat. § 549.09 (2016)
James Poehler v. Cincinnati Insurance Company 874 N.W.2d 806 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Seagate Technology, LLC v. Western Digital Corporation, Sining Mao Minn. Ct. App. 2016
James Poehler v. Cincinnati Insurance Company 874 N.W.2d 806 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
(“Preverdict interest is an element of damages awarded to provide full compensation by converting time-of-demand .
Seagate Technology, LLC v. Western Digital Corporation, Sining Mao Minn. Ct. App. 2016
In re Minnwest Bank Litigation Concerning Real Property in Otsego, Minnesota, Minnwest Bank v. RTB, LLC 873 N.W.2d 135 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
In re Minnwest Bank Litigation Concerning Real Property in Otsego, Minnesota, Minnwest Bank v. RTB, LLC 873 N.W.2d 135 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
See, A & L Duxbury v. Spex Feeds, Inc., -91 (Minn. App. 2004), review denied (Minn. Aug.
John S. Drewitz v. Motorwerks, Inc. 867 N.W.2d 197 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
John S. Drewitz v. Motorwerks, Inc. 867 N.W.2d 197 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
(holding that preverdict interest is calculated under section 334.01 when “damages are ascertainable or liquidated”).
County of Hennepin v. 1010 Metrodome Square, LLC Minn. Ct. App. 2014

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by