Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Church of the Nativity of Our Lord v. WatPro, Inc., 491 N.W.2d 1.

36 citing documents.

William Findling v. Group Health Plan, Inc., d/b/a Health Partners and Regions Hospital, ... Minn. 2023
William Findling v. Group Health Plan, Inc., d/b/a Health Partners and Regions Hospital, ... Minn. 2023
Church of Nativity of Our Lord v. WatPro, Inc.
A21-1527 A21-1528 A21-1530 Minn. Ct. App. 2022
Nystrom, d at 311; see, e.g., Church of the Nativity of Our Lord v. WatPro, Inc., (Simonett, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part) (expressing concern that a consumer can claim attorney fees for “almost any commercial transaction that fails”).
Day Masonry v. Independent School District 347 781 N.W.2d 321 Minn. 2010
Day Masonry v. Independent School District 347 781 N.W.2d 321 Minn. 2010
See Vlahos, d at 678 (explaining that the statutory warranty at issue in Vlahos operates in much the same way as an express warranty of future performance); Church of the Nativity of Our Lord v. WatPro, Inc., (explaining that a breach of an express warranty for future performance accrues “when the plaintiff discovers or should have discovered the defendant’s refusal or inability to maintain the goods as warranted in the contract”) (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted), overruled
State v. Campbell 756 N.W.2d 263 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
State v. Campbell 756 N.W.2d 263 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
And it is black-letter law that an agent “is a fiduciary with respect to matters within the scope of [the] agency.” Restatement (Second) of Agency § 13 (1958); see also Church of the Nativity of Our Lord v. WatPro, Inc., (“An agency relationship is [a] fiduciary relationship ....
Camacho v. Todd and Leiser Homes 706 N.W.2d 49 Minn. 2005
Camacho v. Todd and Leiser Homes 706 N.W.2d 49 Minn. 2005
at 678 (citing Church of the Nativity of Our Lord v. WatPro, Inc., , 314 n. 25 (Minn.2000)).
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
1; cf. Church of Nativity of Our Lord v. WatPro, Inc., 4 Minnesota Practice, CIVJIG § 57.40 (Supp.2003).
Vlahos v. R&I Construction of Bloomington, Inc. 676 N.W.2d 672 Minn. 2004
Vlahos v. R&I Construction of Bloomington, Inc. 676 N.W.2d 672 Minn. 2004
Church of the Nativity of Our Lord v. WatPro, Inc., , 314 n. 25 (Minn. 2000).
Reinsurance Ass'n of Minnesota v. Timmer 641 N.W.2d 302 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
Reinsurance Ass'n of Minnesota v. Timmer 641 N.W.2d 302 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
(Minn. Nov 26, 1991) aff'd
Group Health Plan, Inc. v. Philip Morris Inc. 621 N.W.2d 2 Minn. 2001
Group Health Plan, Inc. v. Philip Morris Inc. 621 N.W.2d 2 Minn. 2001
The tobacco companies argue that, in Church of the Nativity of Our Lord v. WatPro, Inc., , 314 n. 25 (2000), this court implicitly acknowledged that the universe of those who may bring an action under subdivision 3a to enforce the misrepresentation in sales laws is limited to those intended to be protected by the substantive laws.
Hoang Minh Ly v. Nystrom 615 N.W.2d 302 Minn. 2000
Hoang Minh Ly v. Nystrom 615 N.W.2d 302 Minn. 2000
Holiday Recreational Industries, Inc. v. Manheim Services Corp. 599 N.W.2d 179 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
Holiday Recreational Industries, Inc. v. Manheim Services Corp. 599 N.W.2d 179 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
See Church of the Nativity of Our Lord v. WatPro, Inc., (applying Consumer Fraud Act in favor of church); see also Hutchinson Utils.
Hoffman v. Ford Motor Co. 587 N.W.2d 66 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
Hoffman v. Ford Motor Co. 587 N.W.2d 66 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
The parties analogize such notice, however, to that required for breach of sales warranty claims, and they cite Church of Nativity v. WatPro, Inc., -6 (Minn.1992), as authority.
Anderson v. Crestliner, Inc. 564 N.W.2d 218 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
Anderson v. Crestliner, Inc. 564 N.W.2d 218 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
The warranty in question is similar to the warranty in Church of the Nativity of Our Lord v. WatPro, Inc.
Boubelik v. Liberty State Bank 553 N.W.2d 393 Minn. 1996
Boubelik v. Liberty State Bank 553 N.W.2d 393 Minn. 1996
See, e.g., Church of the Nativity of Our Lord v. WatPro, Inc.
Untiedt v. Grand Laboratories, Inc. 552 N.W.2d 571 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
Untiedt v. Grand Laboratories, Inc. 552 N.W.2d 571 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
See Kirchoff v. Flynn, 786 F.2d 320, 327 (7th Cir.1986) (describing fee awards in these terms); Church of Nativity of Our Lord v. WatPro, Inc., (explaining the attorney fees authorized by Minn.Stat.
Metropolitan Life Insurance Co. v. M.A. Mortenson Companies 545 N.W.2d 394 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
Metropolitan Life Insurance Co. v. M.A. Mortenson Companies 545 N.W.2d 394 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
the Minnesota Supreme Court construed the language of this statute as follows: Minn.Stat.
Gust, Rosenfeld & Henderson v. Prudential Insurance Co. of America 898 P.2d 964 Ariz. 1995
Boubelik v. Liberty State Bank 527 N.W.2d 589 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
Boubelik v. Liberty State Bank 527 N.W.2d 589 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
Church of the Nativity of Our Lord v. WatPro, Inc., -8 (Minn.1992).
United Products Corp. v. Atlas Auto Parts 529 N.W.2d 401 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
United Products Corp. v. Atlas Auto Parts 529 N.W.2d 401 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
See Church of the Nativity of Our Lord v. WatPro, Inc., , 5 n. 8 (Minn.1992) (appellate court will not overturn special verdict unless "perverse and palpably contrary to evidence").

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by