Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Vlahos v. R&I Construction of Bloomington, Inc., 676 N.W.2d 672.

125 citing documents.

328 Barry Avenue, LLC v. Nolan Properties Group, LLC, and third party v. Carciofini Company, third party Marvin … Minn. Ct. App. 2015
of Bloomington, Inc., support its argument that the statute of limitations “cannot begin to run until the improvement is completed.” We disagree.
State of Minnesota v. Reinaldo Quesada Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Reinaldo Quesada Minn. Ct. App. 2014
3(c) (2012); Vlahos v. R & I Constr., Inc., n.3 (Minn. 2004); n.1 (Minn. App. 2013).
Westfield Insurane Co. v. Wensmann, Inc. 840 N.W.2d 438 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
Westfield Insurane Co. v. Wensmann, Inc. 840 N.W.2d 438 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
State v. Eichers 840 N.W.2d 210 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
State v. Eichers 840 N.W.2d 210 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
of Bloomington, Inc., , 676 n. 3 (Minn.2004) ("[W]e pause here to stress that unpublished opinions of the court of appeals are not precedential.").
Koski v. Johnson 837 N.W.2d 739 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
Koski v. Johnson 837 N.W.2d 739 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
of Bloomington, Inc., , 676 n. 3 (Minn.2004) (stating that ”[u]npub-lished opinions of the court of appeals are not precedential” and "should not be cited by the district courts as binding precedent”).
State v. Mayl 836 N.W.2d 368 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
State v. Mayl 836 N.W.2d 368 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
3 (2012) (stating that "[ujnpublished opinions of the Court of Appeals are not prec-edential”); Vlahos v. R & I Constr., Inc., , 676 n. 3 (Minn.2004).
State v. Porte 832 N.W.2d 303 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
State v. Porte 832 N.W.2d 303 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
3(c) (2012); Vla-hos v. R & I Constr., Inc., , 676 n. 3 (Minn.2004).
State v. Watson 829 N.W.2d 626 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
State v. Watson 829 N.W.2d 626 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
of Bloomington, Inc., , 676 & n. 3 (Minn.2004) ("[T]he district court relied on an unpublished opinion of the court of appeals....
Sanchez v. State 816 N.W.2d 550 Minn. 2012
Sanchez v. State 816 N.W.2d 550 Minn. 2012
(medical malpractice); Vlahos v. R & I Const. of Bloomington, Inc., -79 (Minn.2004) (breach of warranty for new home construction); D.M.S., d at 387-88 (personal injury through sexual abuse); Wild, 302 Minn. at 449 , d at 794 (defamation).
Eclipse Architectural Group, Inc. v. Lam 814 N.W.2d 692 Minn. 2012
Eclipse Architectural Group, Inc. v. Lam 814 N.W.2d 692 Minn. 2012
of Bloomington, Inc., (“When the language of a statute is plain and unambiguous, that plain language must be followed.”).
State v. Gunderson 812 N.W.2d 156 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
State v. Gunderson 812 N.W.2d 156 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
of Bloomington, Inc., , 676 n. 3 (Minn.2004) (“Unpublished decisions should not be cited by the district courts as binding precedent.”).
In re the Estate of Butler 803 N.W.2d 393 Minn. 2011
In re the Estate of Butler 803 N.W.2d 393 Minn. 2011
of Bloomington, Inc., (citing Amaral v. St.
State v. Caldwell 803 N.W.2d 373 Minn. 2011
State v. Caldwell 803 N.W.2d 373 Minn. 2011
Troyer v. Vertlu Management Co./Kok & Lundberg Funeral Homes 806 N.W.2d 17 Minn. 2011
Troyer v. Vertlu Management Co./Kok & Lundberg Funeral Homes 806 N.W.2d 17 Minn. 2011
of Bloomington, Inc., , 677 n. 4 (Minn.2004) (“The legislature would not have employed different terms in different subdivisions of the statute if it had intended those subdivisions to have the same effect.”).
Skyline Village Park Ass'n v. Skyline Village L.P. 786 N.W.2d 304 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
Skyline Village Park Ass'n v. Skyline Village L.P. 786 N.W.2d 304 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
See Vlahos v. R & I Const. of Bloomington, Inc., n. 3 (Minn.2004) ("The danger of miscita-lion is great because unpublished decisions rarely contain a full recitation of the facts.”); Dynamic Air, d at 801 ("We remind the bench and bar firmly that neither the trial courts nor practitioners are to rely on unpublished opinions as binding precedent.”).
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
7 A. We held in Vlahos v. R & I Construction of Bloomington, Inc., that the statute of limitations for a breach-of-warranty claim “begins to run when the homeowner discovers, or should have discovered, the builder’s refusal or inability to ensure the home is free from major constructions defects.”
Upper Minnetonka Yacht Club v. City of Shorewood 770 N.W.2d 184 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
Upper Minnetonka Yacht Club v. City of Shorewood 770 N.W.2d 184 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
of Bloomington, Inc., , 676 n. 3 (Minn.2004).
State v. Lopez 764 N.W.2d 605 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
State v. Lopez 764 N.W.2d 605 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
of Bloomington, Inc., , 676 n. 3 (Minn.2004).
Donnelly Bros. Construction Co. v. State Auto Property & Casualty Insurance Co. 759 N.W.2d 651 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
Donnelly Bros. Construction Co. v. State Auto Property & Casualty Insurance Co. 759 N.W.2d 651 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
3(c) (2006); Vlahos v. R & I Constr., , 676 n. 3 (Minn.2004) (stating that the district court erred “both as a matter of law and as a matter of practice” by relying on an unpublished opinion of the court of appeals, “stressing] that unpublished opinions of the court of appeals are not precedential,” and noting that “[t]he danger of miscitation is great be
Stewart Title Guaranty Co. v. Commissioner of Revenue 757 N.W.2d 874 Minn. 2008
Stewart Title Guaranty Co. v. Commissioner of Revenue 757 N.W.2d 874 Minn. 2008
“When the language of a statute is plain and unambiguous, that plain language must be followed.” Vlahos v. R & I Const. of Bloomington, Inc., (citation omitted).
Lee v. Fresenius Medical Care, Inc. 741 N.W.2d 117 Minn. 2007
Lee v. Fresenius Medical Care, Inc. 741 N.W.2d 117 Minn. 2007
of Bloomington, Inc., *123 (Minn.2004).
Clark v. Peterson 741 N.W.2d 136 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
Clark v. Peterson 741 N.W.2d 136 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
“Statutory construction is a question of law subject to de novo review.” Vlahos v. R & I Constr.
Gomez v. David A. Williams Realty & Construction, Inc. 740 N.W.2d 775 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
Gomez v. David A. Williams Realty & Construction, Inc. 740 N.W.2d 775 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
of Bloomington, Inc,, (holding that the statutory new-home warranty extends to future performance, and that the applicable statute of .limitations, Minn.Stat.
Mavco, Inc. v. Eggink 739 N.W.2d 148 Minn. 2007
Mavco, Inc. v. Eggink 739 N.W.2d 148 Minn. 2007
of Bloomington, Inc., ).
Sletto v. Wesley Construction, Inc. 733 N.W.2d 838 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
Sletto v. Wesley Construction, Inc. 733 N.W.2d 838 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
A statutory-warranty claim accrues when “the homeowner discovers, or should have discovered, the builder’s refusal or inability to ensure the home is free from major construction defects.” Vlahos v. R & I Const. of Bloomington, Inc.
In Re the Claim for Benefits by Sloan 729 N.W.2d 626 Minn. Ct. App. 2007

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by