Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Romine v. BONFE PLUMBING & HEATING, 648 N.W.2d 664.

29 citing documents.

APX Construction Group, LLC, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
cf. Minn. Stat. § 572B.29(a) (stating that in “applying and construing [the MUAA], consideration must be given to the need to promote uniformity of the law with respect to its subject matter among states that enact it”) .
State of Minnesota, by its Commissioner of Transportation, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
(noting that we review issues of subject-matter jurisdiction de novo).
In re the Matter of: Brooks J. Waldron, petitioner, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
(subject-matter jurisdiction); Rilley v. MoneyMutual, LLC, (personal jurisdiction).
In re the Matter of: Minn. Ct. App. 2019
In re the Supervised Estate of: Brian Scott Short, Deceased. Minn. Ct. App. 2019
“Because uniform laws are intended to encourage common interpretation among jurisdictions, caselaw from other UPC jurisdictions has substantial persuasive value.” (citing Johnson v. Murray, 8 ), review denied (Minn. Dec.
In re the Marriage of: James Edward Cook, II, petitioner, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Additionally, Minnesota courts “give great weight to other states’ interpretations of a uniform law.” d 664, 670 (Minn. 2002) (making this statement in the contex t of construing the UCCJA); see Minn. Stat. § 645.22 (2016) (stating that uniform laws “ shall be interpreted and construed to effect their general purpose to make uniform the laws of those states which enact them”).
A16-1612 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
“A ccordingly, we give great weight to other states’ interpretations of a uniform law.”
Sorchaga v. Ride Auto, LLC 893 N.W.2d 360 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
(referring to the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act); see also Minn. Stat. § 336.1-103 (a)(3) (2016).
Christine Diane Eyal, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
App. 2008) (citing Olmanson v. LeSueur County , (statutory interpretation); Johnson v. Murray , (subject-matter jurisdiction); Anderson v. Archer , (stipulations in dissolution judgments)), review denied (Aug.
Melissa Dawn Paisley v. Clark Davis Kratzer Minn. Ct. App. 2016
[]UCCJEA[] involves questions of subject matter jurisdiction.” d 664, 670 (Minn. 2002) (noting that applying the UCCJEA’s predecessor statute involved questions of subject matter jurisdiction).
Ken B. Peterson, Commissioner of the Minnesota Department of Labor and Industry v. United Parcel Service, Inc. Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Citizens State Bank Norwood Young America v. Gordon Brown 849 N.W.2d 55 Minn. 2014
This is significant to our analysis because, “[u]ni-form laws are interpreted to effect their general purpose to make uniform the laws of those states that enact them.” (citing Minn.Stat.
NHF Hog Marketing, Inc. v. Pork-Martin, LLP 811 N.W.2d 116 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
Accordingly, “we give great weight to other states’ interpretations of a uniform law.”
In re Beachside I Homeowners Ass'n 802 N.W.2d 771 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
“We give great weight to other states’ interpretations of a uniform law.” Savig, d at 346 ().
Graff v. Robert M. Swendra Agency, Inc. 800 N.W.2d 112 Minn. 2011
In Re Welfare of Children of D.M.T.-r. 802 N.W.2d 759 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
Savig v. First National Bank of Omaha 781 N.W.2d 335 Minn. 2010
“[W]e give great weight to other states’ interpretations of a uniform law.”
Hennepin County v. Hill 777 N.W.2d 252 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
These opinions are relevant to our analysis because uniform laws should be “interpreted to effect their general purpose to make uniform the laws of those states that enact them.”
City of Waite Park v. Minnesota Office of Administrative Hearings 758 N.W.2d 347 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
Marriage of Grachek v. Grachek 750 N.W.2d 328 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
(statutory interpretation); (subject-matter jurisdiction); (stipulations in dissolution judgments).
In Re the Civil Commitment of Giem 742 N.W.2d 422 Minn. 2007
Mercer v. Andersen 715 N.W.2d 114 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
State Ex Rel. Swan Lake Area Wildlife Ass'n v. Nicollet County Board of County Commissioners 711 N.W.2d 522 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
In Re the Welfare of the Child of T.T.B. 710 N.W.2d 799 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
In Re the Estate of Kotowski 704 N.W.2d 522 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
Findings of Abuse of D.F.C. v. Minnesota Commissioner of Health 693 N.W.2d 451 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
Northern States Power Co. v. Gas Services, Inc. 690 N.W.2d 362 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
State Ex Rel. Hatch v. Allina Health System 679 N.W.2d 400 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
Marriage of Schroeder v. Schroeder 658 N.W.2d 909 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
(noting application of UCCJEA’s predecessor statute involved questions of subject matter jurisdiction).