Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Hoang Minh Ly v. Nystrom, 615 N.W.2d 302.

117 citing documents.

Curtis v. Altria Group, Inc. 813 N.W.2d 891 Minn. 2012
Curtis v. Altria Group, Inc. 813 N.W.2d 891 Minn. 2012
Specifically, Philip Morris argues that respondents’ consumer protection claims asserted under section 8.31, subdivision 3a
United Prairie Bank-Mountain Lake v. Haugen Nutrition & Equipment, LLC 813 N.W.2d 49 Minn. 2012
Baker v. Best Buy Stores, LP 812 N.W.2d 177 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
Baker v. Best Buy Stores, LP 812 N.W.2d 177 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
(stating that alleged fraudulent conduct under the MCFA must have been intended to deceive someone).
Dahlin v. Kroening 796 N.W.2d 503 Minn. 2011
Dahlin v. Kroening 796 N.W.2d 503 Minn. 2011
Amcon Block & Precast, Inc. v. Suess 794 N.W.2d 386 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
Amcon Block & Precast, Inc. v. Suess 794 N.W.2d 386 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
A statutory enactment can abrogate the common law “by express wording or necessary implication.”
Curtis v. Altria Group, Inc. 792 N.W.2d 836 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
Curtis v. Altria Group, Inc. 792 N.W.2d 836 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
Bearder v. State 788 N.W.2d 144 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
Bearder v. State 788 N.W.2d 144 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
See, (construing broadly consumer statute designed to protect public); see also Minn.Stat.
301 Clifton Place L.L.C. v. 301 Clifton Place Condominium Ass'n 783 N.W.2d 551 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
301 Clifton Place L.L.C. v. 301 Clifton Place Condominium Ass'n 783 N.W.2d 551 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
3a (2008); (holding that Minn.Stat.
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
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), , 314 n. 25 (Minn.2000).
Do v. American Family Mutual Insurance Co. 779 N.W.2d 853 Minn. 2010
Do v. American Family Mutual Insurance Co. 779 N.W.2d 853 Minn. 2010
(stating that “if a statute abrogates the common law, the abrogation must be by express wording or necessary implication”).
State v. Campbell 756 N.W.2d 263 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
State v. Campbell 756 N.W.2d 263 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
” (quotation omitted)), , 314 n. 25 (Minn.2000).
Urban v. American Legion Department of Minnesota 723 N.W.2d 1 Minn. 2006
TCM PROPERTIES, LLC v. Gunderson 720 N.W.2d 344 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
TCM PROPERTIES, LLC v. Gunderson 720 N.W.2d 344 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
First National Bank of the North v. Miller Schroeder Financial, Inc. 709 N.W.2d 295 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
First National Bank of the North v. Miller Schroeder Financial, Inc. 709 N.W.2d 295 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
Moreover, interpreting the Minnesota Consumer Fraud Act to authorize a suit against the state for registering the UHI debentures is contrary to the Act’s purpose, which is to “address the unequal bargaining power often present in consumer transactions.”
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)).
Stringer v. Minnesota Vikings Football Club, LLC 705 N.W.2d 746 Minn. 2005
TIMELINE, LLC v. Williams Holdings 3, LLC 698 N.W.2d 181 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
TIMELINE, LLC v. Williams Holdings 3, LLC 698 N.W.2d 181 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
We agree and note that such rights are only given “to those claimants who demonstrate that their cause of action benefits the public.”
Jensen v. Duluth Area YMCA 688 N.W.2d 574 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
Jensen v. Duluth Area YMCA 688 N.W.2d 574 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
Wiegand v. Walser Automotive Groups, Inc. 683 N.W.2d 807 Minn. 2004
Wiegand v. Walser Automotive Groups, Inc. 683 N.W.2d 807 Minn. 2004
Brekke v. THM Biomedical, Inc. 683 N.W.2d 771 Minn. 2004
Brekke v. THM Biomedical, Inc. 683 N.W.2d 771 Minn. 2004
“We have * * * long presumed that statutes are consistent with the common law, and if a statute abrogates the common law, the abrogation must be by express wording or necessary implication.” (citing In re Shetsky, 239 Minn. 463, 469 , ).
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
The availability of a statutory remedy does not abrogate other common law remedies except by “express wording or necessary implication.”
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).
Wiegand v. Walser Automotive Groups, Inc. 670 N.W.2d 449 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
Wiegand v. Walser Automotive Groups, Inc. 670 N.W.2d 449 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
In Re Silicone Implant Insurance Coverage Litigation 667 N.W.2d 405 Minn. 2003
In Re Silicone Implant Insurance Coverage Litigation 667 N.W.2d 405 Minn. 2003
Under Minnesota’s common law, “each party bears [its] own attorney fees in the absence of a statutory or contractual exception.” Garrick v. Northland Ins.
Collins v. Minnesota School of Business, Inc. 655 N.W.2d 320 Minn. 2003
Collins v. Minnesota School of Business, Inc. 655 N.W.2d 320 Minn. 2003
When denying attorney fees, in which we held that the private attorney general statute could be invoked to award attorney fees only if the claims benefited the public.
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
Putz v. Putz 645 N.W.2d 343 Minn. 2002

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by