Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Trapp v. Hancuh, 587 N.W.2d 61.

24 citing documents.

Ming Le Lu, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2024
Damages are readily ascertainable “when the amount demanded can be ascertained by computation or reference to generally recognized standards and does not depend on a contingency.”
Ingrid Jorgensen, et al., Respondents, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
Eric John Blehr, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
Examples of unascertainable damages include the valuation of a partnership interest, the amount of damages for a trespass, Hogenson, d at 274, and personal injury or injury to reputation, Potter v. Hartzell Propeller, Inc.
Nutripro Feeds, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Minn. Stat. § 549.09 (2016)
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
Sean Kennedy v. Soo Line Railroad Company d/b/a Canadian Pacific Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Sean Kennedy v. Soo Line Railroad Company d/b/a Canadian Pacific Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Arthur Allen Hogenson v. Michael W. Hogenson 852 N.W.2d 266 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Arthur Allen Hogenson v. Michael W. Hogenson 852 N.W.2d 266 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Kinworthy v. Soo Line Railroad 841 N.W.2d 363 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
Kinworthy v. Soo Line Railroad 841 N.W.2d 363 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
(stating that availability of statutory prejudgment interest is a legal question, which is reviewed de novo); Melin, d at 420 (stating that FELA has no prejudgment-interest provision and that circuit courts have uniformly concluded that “Congress did not intend to provide prejudgment inter
In re the Estate of Rutt 824 N.W.2d 641 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
In re the Estate of Rutt 824 N.W.2d 641 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
1, requires interest to begin accruing on the earliest of (1) “the commencement of the action,” (2) “a demand for arbitration,” or (3) “the time of a written notice of claim.” (MinnApp.
Soderbeck v. Center for Diagnostic Imaging, Inc. 793 N.W.2d 437 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
Soderbeck v. Center for Diagnostic Imaging, Inc. 793 N.W.2d 437 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
(reviewing de novo construction of settlement agreement); Potter v. Hartzell Propeller, Inc., 291 Minn. 513, 518-19 , (reviewing de novo award of interest as damages); (reviewing de novo construction of MinmStat.
Duxbury v. Spex Feeds, Inc. 681 N.W.2d 380 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
Duxbury v. Spex Feeds, Inc. 681 N.W.2d 380 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
Wolf Motor Co. v. One 2000 Ford F-350, VIN IFTSX31F1YEC59488 658 N.W.2d 900 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
Wolf Motor Co. v. One 2000 Ford F-350, VIN IFTSX31F1YEC59488 658 N.W.2d 900 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
Peterson v. BASF Corp. 657 N.W.2d 853 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
Peterson v. BASF Corp. 657 N.W.2d 853 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
In Re Silicone Implant Insurance Coverage Litigation 652 N.W.2d 46 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
In Re Silicone Implant Insurance Coverage Litigation 652 N.W.2d 46 Minn. Ct. App. 2002