Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Valley Farmers' Elevator v. Lindsay Bros., 398 N.W.2d 553.

38 citing documents.

Cambria Company, LLC v. M&M Creative Laminants, Inc. dba M&M Creative Laminates, Inc., ... Minn. 2024
Cambria Company, LLC v. M&M Creative Laminants, Inc. dba M&M Creative Laminates, Inc., ... Minn. 2024
does not transform a contract of sale into a contract for services.’ ” (Quoting Valley Farmers’ d 683 (Minn. 1990)).
A22-0724 Minn. Ct. App. 2023
The district court rejected this argument, determining that paying for a product with some added service “does not transform a contract of sale into a contract for services.” The district court cited the Minnesota Supreme Court’s decision in Valley Farmers’ Elevator v. Lindsay Bros. that “[s]ervices are always required to convert raw materials into a useful product.”
Minn. 2022
Compare Valley Farmers’ (“We adopt the ‘predominant factor’ test”), and McCarthy Well Co. v. St.
County of Hennepin v. 1010 Metrodome Square, LLC Minn. Ct. App. 2014
County of Hennepin v. 1010 Metrodome Square, LLC Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Valley Farmers’ –56 (Minn. 1987)
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
Vesta State Bank v. Independent State Bank of Minnesota 518 N.W.2d 850 Minn. 1994
Vesta State Bank v. Independent State Bank of Minnesota 518 N.W.2d 850 Minn. 1994
Valley Farmers’ McCarthy Well Co. v. St.
Vesta State Bank v. Independent State Bank of Minnesota 506 N.W.2d 307 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
Vesta State Bank v. Independent State Bank of Minnesota 506 N.W.2d 307 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
City of Willmar v. Short-Elliott-Hendrickson, Inc. 498 N.W.2d 766 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
City of Willmar v. Short-Elliott-Hendrickson, Inc. 498 N.W.2d 766 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
at 79 (citing Valley Farmers’ ).
Arden Hills North Homes Ass'n v. Pemtom, Inc. 475 N.W.2d 495 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
Arden Hills North Homes Ass'n v. Pemtom, Inc. 475 N.W.2d 495 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
Holstad v. Southwestern Porcelain, Inc.
Housing & Redevelopment Authority for Crookston v. Agassiz Construction, Inc. 476 N.W.2d 781 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
Housing & Redevelopment Authority for Crookston v. Agassiz Construction, Inc. 476 N.W.2d 781 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
See City of Willmar v. Short-Elliott-Hendrickson, Inc., Valley Farmers’ -57 (Minn.1987); TCF Bank & Sav., F.A.
City of Willmar v. Short-Elliott-Hendrickson, Inc. 475 N.W.2d 73 Minn. 1991
City of Willmar v. Short-Elliott-Hendrickson, Inc. 475 N.W.2d 73 Minn. 1991
In Valley Farmers’ this court concluded that “[t]he time for testing whether a transaction is a sale of goods— i.e., a sale of movable things — is at the time of identification to the contract * * Id.
TCF Bank & Sav. v. Marshall Truss Sys. 466 N.W.2d 49 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
TCF Bank & Sav. v. Marshall Truss Sys. 466 N.W.2d 49 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
Valley Farmers’ overruled on other grounds
Western Lake Superior Sanitary District v. Orfei & Sons, Inc. 463 N.W.2d 781 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
Western Lake Superior Sanitary District v. Orfei & Sons, Inc. 463 N.W.2d 781 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
Hapka v. Paquin Farms 458 N.W.2d 683 Minn. 1990
Hapka v. Paquin Farms 458 N.W.2d 683 Minn. 1990
Groves & Valley Farmers’ this court seems to have treated the exception for “other property” as part of the holding.
Fagerlie v. City of Willmar 435 N.W.2d 641 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Fagerlie v. City of Willmar 435 N.W.2d 641 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
In Valley Farmers’ the supreme court explained that Minn.Stat.
Hydra-Mac, Inc. v. Onan Corp. 430 N.W.2d 846 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Hydra-Mac, Inc. v. Onan Corp. 430 N.W.2d 846 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
§ 336.2-725 (1986); Valley Farmers’ Vasek v. Warren Grain & Seed Co.
Holstad v. Southwestern Porcelain, Inc. 421 N.W.2d 371 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Holstad v. Southwestern Porcelain, Inc. 421 N.W.2d 371 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
State v. Patten 416 N.W.2d 168 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
State v. Patten 416 N.W.2d 168 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
On February 23, 1987, after release of Valley Farmers’ summary judgment was granted to respondent on the negligence claim also.
McCarthy Well Co. v. St. Peter Creamery, Inc. 410 N.W.2d 312 Minn. 1987
McCarthy Well Co. v. St. Peter Creamery, Inc. 410 N.W.2d 312 Minn. 1987
Our recent decision in Valley Farmers’ addressed the question of “whether and under what circumstances a hybrid contract involving the sale of goods and the provision of services falls within the statutory scheme of the U.C.C.” Id.
Prichard Bros., Inc. v. Grady Co. 407 N.W.2d 423 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Prichard Bros., Inc. v. Grady Co. 407 N.W.2d 423 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
See Valley Farmers’ McCarthy Well Co. v. St.

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by