Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Rosenberg v. Heritage Renovations, LLC, 685 N.W.2d 320.

62 citing documents.

Julie Massaquoi v. Abe Al-Qudeh Minn. Ct. App. 2026
Julie Massaquoi v. Abe Al-Qudeh Minn. Ct. App. 2026
See Rosenberg v. Heritage Renovations, LLC, 10 (“[T]he court should deny a motion to amend a complaint where the proposed claim could not withstand summary judgment.”).
Robert Goerdt, et al., Appellants, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
Also, a district court may deny a motion to amend if it is futile; in other words, if the amendment “will accomplish nothing” because it “does not state a cognizable legal claim,” id., or when the claim could not survive summary judgment, Rosenberg v. Heritage Renovations, LLC
Serene E. Warren, as beneficiary of the 2011 Arizona NG Trust 102, 8008 Meadow Trust 102, 2011 Lafayette … Minn. Ct. App. 2025
This includes “where the proposed claim could not withstand summary judgment.” Rosenberg v. Heritage Renovations, LLC
William Jepsen, as Trustee for the Heirs and Next of Kin of Eric Parker Dean, Minn. 2021
’ ” (quoting Rosenberg v. Heritage Renovations, LLC , ).
Scot A. Lacek, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
Rosenberg v. Heritage Renovations, LLC
Travis Colsen, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
27 the time of termination [of a listing agreement].” Rosenberg v. Heritage Renovations, LLC
Minn. 2021
See Rosenberg v. Heritage Renovations, LLC , (Minn .
Paul Stepnes, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
Rosenberg v. Heritage Renovations, LLC, (interpreting Minn. Stat. § 82.195 (2002), renumbered to Minn. Stat. § 82.21, renumbered to section 82.66).
Minn. 2019
Co., (quoting Rosenberg v. Heritage Renovations, LLC, ).
Waterford Township, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Rosenberg v. Heritage Renovations, LLC
Al Dressely, et al., Respondents, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
The district court relied on Rosenberg v. Heritage Renovation s, LLC, d 320 (Minn. 2004) in concluding that the two unpaid flooring arrangements included CAL Properties as a party.
In re: the Estate of Sherwood Thomas Perl, Deceased. Minn. Ct. App. 2018
See Ro senberg v. Heritage Renovations, LLC
Burt v. Rackner, Inc. 902 N.W.2d 448 Minn. 2017
Steven J. Jaeger v. Palladium Holdings, LLC, Franklin Financial, LLC 884 N.W.2d 601 Minn. 2016
Steven J. Jaeger v. Palladium Holdings, LLC, Franklin Financial, LLC 884 N.W.2d 601 Minn. 2016
Co., (quoting Rosenberg v. Heritage Renovations, LLC, ) (“Generally, statutes in derogation of the common law are to be strictly construed.”); S.M.
Soderberg & Vail, LLC v. Meshbesher & Spence, Ltd. Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Soderberg & Vail, LLC v. Meshbesher & Spence, Ltd. Minn. Ct. App. 2016
A joint venture exists where four elements are present: “(1) contribution by all parties, (2) joint proprietorship and control, (3) sharing of profits but not necessarily of losses, and (4) a contract.” Rosenberg v. Heritage Renovations, LLC
Cityscapes Development, LLC v. Larry Scheffler 866 N.W.2d 66 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Cityscapes Development, LLC v. Larry Scheffler 866 N.W.2d 66 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Rosenberg v. Heritage Renovations, LLC
Metropolitan Sheet Metal Journeyman & Apprentice Training Trust Fund v. County of Ramsey 832 N.W.2d 844 Minn. 2013
Metropolitan Sheet Metal Journeyman & Apprentice Training Trust Fund v. County of Ramsey 832 N.W.2d 844 Minn. 2013
See, e.g., Rosenberg v. Heritage Renovations, LLC, (analyzing whether the district court abused its discretion when it denied a motion to amend a complaint after summary judgment was granted); -68 (Minn.1999) (analyzing whether the district court abused its discretion when it denied a motion to amend a comp
Johnson v. Paynesville Farmers Union Cooperative Oil Co. 817 N.W.2d 693 Minn. 2012
Staab v. Diocese of St. Cloud 813 N.W.2d 68 Minn. 2012
Staab v. Diocese of St. Cloud 813 N.W.2d 68 Minn. 2012
Rosenberg v. Heritage Renovations, LLC
Allen v. Burnet Realty, LLC 801 N.W.2d 153 Minn. 2011
Allen v. Burnet Realty, LLC 801 N.W.2d 153 Minn. 2011
Rosenberg v. Heritage Renovations, LLC
Johnson v. Paynesville Farmers Union Cooperative Oil Co. 802 N.W.2d 383 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
Johnson v. Paynesville Farmers Union Cooperative Oil Co. 802 N.W.2d 383 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
Rosenberg v. Heritage Renovations, LLC
Graff v. Robert M. Swendra Agency, Inc. 800 N.W.2d 112 Minn. 2011
Graff v. Robert M. Swendra Agency, Inc. 800 N.W.2d 112 Minn. 2011
See Do, d at 858 (noting that “ ‘statutes in derogation of the common law are to be strictly construed’ ” (quoting Rosenberg v. Heritage Renovations, LLC, )); Kelly v. First Minneapolis Trust Co., 178 Minn. 215, 217 , 226 *121 N.W.
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
Rosenberg v. Heritage Renovations, LLC
Asian Women United of Minnesota v. Leiendecker 789 N.W.2d 688 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
Asian Women United of Minnesota v. Leiendecker 789 N.W.2d 688 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
See *691 Rosenberg v. Heritage Renovations, LLC, (stating that de novo standard of review applies to construction of statutes and contracts); Isaacs v. Am.
State v. Holmes 787 N.W.2d 617 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
State v. Holmes 787 N.W.2d 617 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
Rosenberg v. Heritage Renovations, LLC
Swanson v. Brewster 784 N.W.2d 264 Minn. 2010
Swanson v. Brewster 784 N.W.2d 264 Minn. 2010
See Rosenberg v. Heritage Renovations, LLC
Starlite Ltd. Partnership v. Landry's Restaurants, Inc. 780 N.W.2d 396 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
Starlite Ltd. Partnership v. Landry's Restaurants, Inc. 780 N.W.2d 396 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
Rosenberg v. Heritage Renovations, LLC, -26 (Minn. 2004)
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
“Generally, statutes in derogation of the common law are to be strictly construed.” Rosenberg v. Heritage Renovations, LLC, accord 73 Am.
Goodman v. Best Buy, Inc. 755 N.W.2d 354 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
Goodman v. Best Buy, Inc. 755 N.W.2d 354 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
Rosenberg v. Heritage Renovations, LLC
Hoeft v. Hennepin County 754 N.W.2d 717 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
Hoeft v. Hennepin County 754 N.W.2d 717 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
Rosenberg v. Heritage Renovations, LLC
Frieler v. Carlson Marketing Group, Inc. 751 N.W.2d 558 Minn. 2008
DORSEY & WHITNEY LLP v. Grossman 749 N.W.2d 409 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
DORSEY & WHITNEY LLP v. Grossman 749 N.W.2d 409 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
(discussing parties’ conduct “under the ...