Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Nadeau v. Austin Mutual Insurance Co., 350 N.W.2d 368.

60 citing documents.

John Arthur Olson, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
Carmen Schroeder v. Western National Mutual Insurance Co. 865 N.W.2d 66 Minn. 2015
Carmen Schroeder v. Western National Mutual Insurance Co. 865 N.W.2d 66 Minn. 2015
Co., and is inapplicable here because Schroeder did not pay for replacement household services.
Carmen Schroeder v. Western National Mutual Insurance Company 850 N.W.2d 712 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Carmen Schroeder v. Western National Mutual Insurance Company 850 N.W.2d 712 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Co., & n.2 (Minn. 1984).
Dougherty v. State Farm Mutual Insurance Co. 699 N.W.2d 741 Minn. 2005
Dougherty v. State Farm Mutual Insurance Co. 699 N.W.2d 741 Minn. 2005
Podvin v. Jamar Co. 655 N.W.2d 645 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
Podvin v. Jamar Co. 655 N.W.2d 645 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
Co., (interpreting the Minnesota No Fault Act for replacement service loss benefits); see also Black’s Law Dictionary 771 (7th ed.1999) (defining “incur” as “to suffer or bring on oneself (a liability or expense)”).
Progressive Specialty Insurance Co. v. Widness Ex Rel. Widness 635 N.W.2d 516 Minn. 2001
Lenz v. Depositors Insurance Co. 561 N.W.2d 559 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
Lenz v. Depositors Insurance Co. 561 N.W.2d 559 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
Co., the court construed the first clause of the subdivision and held that a wife who did not provide care and maintenance of the home on a full-time basis could not recover the value of replacement services provided by her husband because she had not actually “incurred” expenses for those replacement services
Glazier v. Independent School District No. 876 558 N.W.2d 763 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
Glazier v. Independent School District No. 876 558 N.W.2d 763 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
In re Clarification of an Appropriate Unit 555 N.W.2d 552 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
In re Clarification of an Appropriate Unit 555 N.W.2d 552 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
Marriage of Marden v. Marden 546 N.W.2d 25 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
Marriage of Marden v. Marden 546 N.W.2d 25 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
Co., review denied (Minn. Feb.
State v. Ellenberger 543 N.W.2d 673 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
State v. Ellenberger 543 N.W.2d 673 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
American Federation of State, County & Municipal Employees, Council No. 14 v. County of Scott 530 N.W.2d 218 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
American Federation of State, County & Municipal Employees, Council No. 14 v. County of Scott 530 N.W.2d 218 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
Johnson v. Multiple Miscellaneous Items Numbered 1-424 523 N.W.2d 238 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
Johnson v. Multiple Miscellaneous Items Numbered 1-424 523 N.W.2d 238 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
Benike v. Dairyland Insurance Co. 520 N.W.2d 465 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
Benike v. Dairyland Insurance Co. 520 N.W.2d 465 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
Ins., (finding no-fault coverage where pedestrian was injured in attempting to avoid an oncoming car); Holzemer v. Millers’ Mut.
LaValley v. National Family Insurance Corp. 517 N.W.2d 602 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
LaValley v. National Family Insurance Corp. 517 N.W.2d 602 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
Co., -73 (Minn.1984) (denying benefits where spouse performing the replacement services for injured wife received no payment for performing the services; benefits are limited to “genuine economic loss”); Motschenbacher v. New Hampshire Ins.
Great West Casualty Co. v. Kroning 511 N.W.2d 32 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
Great West Casualty Co. v. Kroning 511 N.W.2d 32 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
Heaslip v. Freeman 511 N.W.2d 21 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
Heaslip v. Freeman 511 N.W.2d 21 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
Ins., (statutes should be construed according to their plain and ordinary meaning); see also Minn.Stat.
KIRKWOLD CONST. v. MGA Const., Inc. 498 N.W.2d 465 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
KIRKWOLD CONST. v. MGA Const., Inc. 498 N.W.2d 465 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
Co., (statute construed according to plain and ordinary meaning).
Kirkwold Construction Co. v. M.G.A. Construction, Inc. 498 N.W.2d 465 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
Kirkwold Construction Co. v. M.G.A. Construction, Inc. 498 N.W.2d 465 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
Co., (statute construed according to plain and ordinary meaning).
CNA Insurance Companies v. Caswell-Ross Agency 497 N.W.2d 633 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
CNA Insurance Companies v. Caswell-Ross Agency 497 N.W.2d 633 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
Dohman v. Housely 478 N.W.2d 221 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
Dohman v. Housely 478 N.W.2d 221 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
Rivard v. McGinnis 454 N.W.2d 453 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
Rivard v. McGinnis 454 N.W.2d 453 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
“[T]he terms of a statute generally should be construed according to their plain and ordinary meaning.” (citation omitted).
Possis Corp. v. Continental MacHines, Inc. 425 N.W.2d 286 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Possis Corp. v. Continental MacHines, Inc. 425 N.W.2d 286 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Marklund v. Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Co. 400 N.W.2d 337 Minn. 1987
Marklund v. Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Co. 400 N.W.2d 337 Minn. 1987
Edwards v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. 399 N.W.2d 95 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Wieneke v. Home Mutual Insurance Co. 397 N.W.2d 597 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Continental Western Insurance Co. v. Klug 394 N.W.2d 872 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Continental Western Insurance Co. v. Klug 394 N.W.2d 872 Minn. Ct. App. 1986