Cited by

15 (citing Ryan Contracting Co. v. O’Neill & Murphy, LLP, -49 (Minn. 2016)).

Under the doctrine of judicial estoppel, “when a party assumes a certain position in a legal proceeding, and succeeds in maintaining that position, [they] may not thereafter, simply because [their] interests have changed, assume a contrary position, especially if it prejudices the party who acquiesced in the position taken by [them] .” Ryan Contracting Co. v. O’ Neill & Murphy, LLP

Ryan Contracting Co. v. O’Neill & Murphy, LLP

Generally, “when a party assumes a certain position in a legal proceeding, and succeeds in maintaining that position, he may not thereafter, simply because his interests have changed, assume a contrary position, especially if it prejudices the party who acquiesced in the position taken by him.” Ryan Contracting Co. v. O’Neill & Murphy, LLP, d 236, 248 (Minn. 2016).

See, e.g., Ryan Contracting Co. v. O’Neill & Murphy, LLP

This rule “r eflects the basic intuition that when a modifier appears at the end of a list, it is easier to apply that modifier only to the item directly before it.” Ryan Contracting Co. v. O’Neill & Murphy, LLP , (quotation omitted).

“To the exte nt there is ambiguity, mechanic’s lien laws are strictly construed as to the question of whether a lien attaches, but are liberally construed after the lien is created with respect to the enforcement of the lien.” Ryan Contracting Co. v. O’Neill & Murphy, LLP

“A mechanic’s lien is a statutory remedy available to those who furnish labor or materials in the improvement of real property.” Ryan Contracting Co. v. O’Neill & Murphy, LLP

App. P. 103.04; Ryan Contracting Co. v. O’Neill & Murphy, LLP, (addressing whether an appellant was entitled to a jury trial on damages “in the 6 interests of judicial economy because it is likely to arise on remand”), aff’d as modified

See Ryan Contracting Co. v. O’Neill & Murphy, LLP, (addressing issue in case “in the interests of judicial economy because it is likely to arise on remand”), aff’d as modified, Minn. R. Civ.

Ryan Contracting Co. v. O’Neill & Murphy, LLP

Ryan Contracting Co. v. O'Neill & Murphy, LLP , , 244-45 (Minn. 2016).

See Ryan Contracting Co. v. O’Neill & Murphy, LLP , (addressing issue in case “in the interests of judicial economy because it is likely to arise on remand”), aff’d as modified, d 236 (Minn. 2016); see also Minn. R. Civ.

action a plaintiff must show: “(1) the existence of an attorney-client relationship; (2) acts constituting negligence 9 or breach of contract; (3) that such acts were the proximate cause of the plaintiff’s damages; and (4) that but for defendant’s conduct, the plaintiff would have been successful in the prosecution or defense of the action.” Ryan Contracting Co. v. O’Neill & Murphy , LLP, (quotation omitted).

“A mechanic’s lien provides the claimant with a non-consensual lien or security interest in the improved property.” Ryan Contracting Co. v. O’Neill & Murphy, LLP