Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Kemp v. Allis-Chalmers Corp., 390 N.W.2d 848.

30 citing documents.

Siewert v. Northern States Power Co. 793 N.W.2d 272 Minn. 2011
Siewert v. Northern States Power Co. 793 N.W.2d 272 Minn. 2011
Paul, (sewer system); -51 (Minn.App.1986) (electrical cable installed as part of electrical transmission system).
Miernicki v. Duluth Curling Club 699 N.W.2d 787 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
Miernicki v. Duluth Curling Club 699 N.W.2d 787 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
See, (stating that “a good-faith belief that there was a four-year statute of limitations period” and the contention that this would be more appropriate than the two-year statute that actually pertained could be addressed only in the legislature).
State Farm Fire & Casualty v. Aquila Inc. 697 N.W.2d 636 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
State Farm Fire & Casualty v. Aquila Inc. 697 N.W.2d 636 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
We recognize that in Kemp v. Allis-Chalmers Corp., we said that “[a]n electrical transformer is an improvement to real property for the purposes of the statute.” (citing Lovgren v. Peoples Elec.
Taney v. Independent School District No. 624 673 N.W.2d 497 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
Taney v. Independent School District No. 624 673 N.W.2d 497 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
26, 1986); -51 (Minn.App.1986) (concluding that electrical transformer at industrial plant constituted an improvement).
Fisher v. County of Rock 580 N.W.2d 510 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
Fisher v. County of Rock 580 N.W.2d 510 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
Mortenson Company, (unfinished steel stairway in building under construction held to be an "improvement”), review denied (Minn. July 28, 1988); (electrical cable installed as part of the electrical transmission system of a pellet plant qualified as an "improvement”); (Minn.App.
Wiita v. Potlatch Corp. 492 N.W.2d 270 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
Wiita v. Potlatch Corp. 492 N.W.2d 270 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
for rev. denied (Minn. July 28, 1988); (electrical cable “affixed” to electrical system).
Ritter v. Abbey-Etna MacHine Co. 483 N.W.2d 91 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
Ritter v. Abbey-Etna MacHine Co. 483 N.W.2d 91 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
26, 1986); -51 (Minn.App.1986) (industrial plant’s electrical transformer treated as improvement).
Johnson v. Steele-Waseca Cooperative Electric 469 N.W.2d 517 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
Johnson v. Steele-Waseca Cooperative Electric 469 N.W.2d 517 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
The court must use a “common sense analysis” to determine in each case what is an “improvement to real estate.”
Hartford Fire Insurance Co. v. Westinghouse Electric Corp. 450 N.W.2d 183 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
Hartford Fire Insurance Co. v. Westinghouse Electric Corp. 450 N.W.2d 183 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
26, 1986); (electrical cables running into electrical starter compartment); and Lovgren v. Peoples Elec.
Thorp v. Price Bros. Co. 441 N.W.2d 817 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Thorp v. Price Bros. Co. 441 N.W.2d 817 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
26, 1986); -51 (Minn.Ct.App.1986) (switch gear compartment and electrical cables); Moen v. Rexnord, Inc., 659 F.Supp.
Farnham v. Nasby Agri-Systems, Inc. 437 N.W.2d 759 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Farnham v. Nasby Agri-Systems, Inc. 437 N.W.2d 759 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
crane, an electrical transformer vault, rev’d on other grounds, furnaces, Pacific Indemnity Co., d at 554 ; a switch gear compartment which is part of a large electrical transmission system, an electrical ballast which became a part of a light fixture which was installed in a building
Sartori v. Harnischfeger Corp. 432 N.W.2d 448 Minn. 1988
Sartori v. Harnischfeger Corp. 432 N.W.2d 448 Minn. 1988
Mortenson Company, (unfinished steel stairway in building under construction held to be an “improvement”); (electrical cable installed as part of the electrical transmission system of a pellet plant qualified as an “improvement”); Lovgren v. Peoples Electric Company, Inc., (permanently installed transformer vault in a steel mill, wired to a steel furnace and to an elec
Massie v. City of Duluth 425 N.W.2d 858 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Massie v. City of Duluth 425 N.W.2d 858 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
(large electrical cable permanently installed as part of electrical transmission system constituted improvement to real property); Lovgren v. Peoples Electric Co., Inc., (permanently installed transformer which supplied energy to electric steel mill is
Citizens Security Mutual Insurance Co. of Red Wing v. General Electric Corp. 394 N.W.2d 167 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
CITIZENS SEC. MUT. INS. v. General Elec. 394 N.W.2d 167 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
CITIZENS SEC. MUT. INS. v. General Elec. 394 N.W.2d 167 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
(switchgear compartment constituted a substantial affixed part of a plant electrical system and was an improvement to real property under Minn.Stat.
Citizens Security Mutual Insurance Co. of Red Wing v. General Electric Corp. 394 N.W.2d 167 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
(switchgear compartment constituted a substantial affixed part of a plant electrical system and was an improvement to real property under Minn.Stat.