Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite McCarthy Well Co. v. St. Peter Creamery, Inc., 410 N.W.2d 312.

28 citing documents.

Minn. 2022
Peter Creamery, Inc., (“We adopted the ‘predominant factor’ test.”), with Vesta State Bank v. Indep.
Winston T. Tan, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Peter Creamery, Inc., (stating that when a party fails to supplement information after answering interrogatories, the proper form of relief lies within the discretion of the trial court) .
Northern States Power Company, Southern Minnesota Municipal Power Agency, Aegis Insurance Services, LTD., and other interested insurers as … Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Carmen Price, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Gary Carlson v. Ray Barta Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Gary Carlson v. Ray Barta Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Peter Creamery, Inc., rev’d on other grounds
Thorson v. Zollinger Dental, P.A. 728 N.W.2d 261 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
Thorson v. Zollinger Dental, P.A. 728 N.W.2d 261 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
Peter Creamery, Inc., respondent, in its answers to interrogatories, identified the alleged negligent acts of appellant which supported its counterclaim against appellant for negligence and stated that it had not yet found an expert witness to use at trial.
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
Peter Creamery, Inc., (finding no sale where well builder billed $35,000 for services and $8,000 for well pump); Valley Farmers’ Elevator, d at 556 (finding sale where elevator builder billed $120,000 for labor and more than $380,000 for materials); 1 James J. White & Robert S. Summers, Uniform Commercial Code
State v. Miller 600 N.W.2d 457 Minn. 1999
State v. Miller 600 N.W.2d 457 Minn. 1999
Schmuckler v. Creurer 585 N.W.2d 425 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
Schmuckler v. Creurer 585 N.W.2d 425 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
Peter Creamery, Inc., -20 (Minn.App.1986) (when record insufficient to consider challenge to trial court’s examination of potential jurors and parties could not agree on what transpired, reviewing court refused to consider issue on appeal and affirmed trial court), aff'd in part, rev’d in part, (affirming voir dire issue as not abuse of discretion).
TRWL Financial Establishment v. Select International, Inc. 527 N.W.2d 573 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
TRWL Financial Establishment v. Select International, Inc. 527 N.W.2d 573 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
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
ZumBerge v. Northern States Power Co. 481 N.W.2d 103 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
ZumBerge v. Northern States Power Co. 481 N.W.2d 103 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
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
Hunt v. Regents of the University of Minnesota 460 N.W.2d 28 Minn. 1990
Hunt v. Regents of the University of Minnesota 460 N.W.2d 28 Minn. 1990
Hunt v. Regents of University 446 N.W.2d 400 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Hunt v. Regents of University 446 N.W.2d 400 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Prichard Bros., Inc. v. Grady Co. 428 N.W.2d 391 Minn. 1988
Prichard Bros., Inc. v. Grady Co. 428 N.W.2d 391 Minn. 1988