Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Guillaume & Associates, Inc. v. Don-John Co., 336 N.W.2d 262.

41 citing documents.

Certified Question United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit Minn. 2018
See, Guillaume & Assocs., Inc., v. Don-John Co.
In re the Civil Commitment of Moen 837 N.W.2d 40 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
In re the Civil Commitment of Moen 837 N.W.2d 40 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
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
§ 514.12 (2010)); Guillaume & Assocs., (concluding that Minn. R. Civ.
In re Civil Commitment of Lonergan 811 N.W.2d 635 Minn. 2012
In re Civil Commitment of Lonergan 811 N.W.2d 635 Minn. 2012
v. Don-John Co., , 409 n. 2 (Minn.1982).
S.M. Hentges & Sons, Inc. v. Mensing 777 N.W.2d 228 Minn. 2010
S.M. Hentges & Sons, Inc. v. Mensing 777 N.W.2d 228 Minn. 2010
Mavco, Inc. v. Eggink 739 N.W.2d 148 Minn. 2007
Mavco, Inc. v. Eggink 739 N.W.2d 148 Minn. 2007
915, 915 (1892) (“Of course, no judgment to enforce a lien against the land could be rendered unless the owner is made a party by being brought into the action.”); see also Guillaume & Assocs., (“We have strictly interpreted the time limitations [of the lien statutes] insofar as they determine when a lien is established and when it terminates.”).
Eischen Cabinet Co. v. Hildebrandt 683 N.W.2d 813 Minn. 2004
Eischen Cabinet Co. v. Hildebrandt 683 N.W.2d 813 Minn. 2004
Ryan Contracting, Inc. v. Jag Investments, Inc. 634 N.W.2d 176 Minn. 2001
Ryan Contracting, Inc. v. Jag Investments, Inc. 634 N.W.2d 176 Minn. 2001
915, 915 (1892) (“Of course, no judgment to enforce a lien against the land could be rendered unless the owner is made a party by being brought into the action.”); see also Guillaume & Assocs., (“We have strictly interpreted the time limitations [of the lien statutes] insofar as they determine when a lien is established and when it terminates.”).
Boehm's Inc. v. Wachholz 495 N.W.2d 447 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
Boehm's Inc. v. Wachholz 495 N.W.2d 447 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
See Guillaume & Assoc., Albert & Harlow, Inc. v. Great N. Oil Co., 283 Minn. 246, 250
London Construction Co. v. Roseville Townhomes, Inc. 473 N.W.2d 917 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
London Construction Co. v. Roseville Townhomes, Inc. 473 N.W.2d 917 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
Henke v. Dunham 450 N.W.2d 595 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
Henke v. Dunham 450 N.W.2d 595 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
This “runs counter to the primary objective of the law to dispose of cases on the merits.” Firoved, 277 Minn. at 283 , d at 368 ; see also Guillaume & Associates, (policy behind rules of civil procedure is to try cases on the merits and seek a just determination of every action).
Moen v. Mikhail 447 N.W.2d 462 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Moen v. Mikhail 447 N.W.2d 462 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Blohm v. Minneapolis Urological Surgeons, P.A. 442 N.W.2d 812 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Blohm v. Minneapolis Urological Surgeons, P.A. 442 N.W.2d 812 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
at 537 (citing Guillaume & Associates, ).
Thompson Plumbing Co. v. J.E.C., Inc. 422 N.W.2d 26 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Thompson Plumbing Co. v. J.E.C., Inc. 422 N.W.2d 26 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
See Guillaume & Associates, R.B.
Application of Chesterman 420 N.W.2d 263 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Application of Chesterman 420 N.W.2d 263 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
104.01 should control unless “the essential purpose of (Chapter 508) would be frustrated by application of the rule.” (citing Guillaume & Associates, ).
Parker v. O'PHELAN 414 N.W.2d 534 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Parker v. O'PHELAN 414 N.W.2d 534 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
In Guillaume & Associates, a time extension was allowed under rule 6.02 in a mechanic’s lien proceeding.
Northwest Wholesale Lumber, Inc. v. Citadel Co. 415 N.W.2d 399 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Northwest Wholesale Lumber, Inc. v. Citadel Co. 415 N.W.2d 399 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
In Guillaume & the supreme court held that excusable neglect was sufficient reason to permit untimely filing of an answer, and that Rule 6.02 was not inconsistent with Minn.Stat.
In Re the Brainerd National Bank 383 N.W.2d 284 Minn. 1986
In Re the Brainerd National Bank 383 N.W.2d 284 Minn. 1986
Guillaume & Associates
RB Thompson, Jr. Lumber v. Windsor Dev. 383 N.W.2d 357 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
RB Thompson, Jr. Lumber v. Windsor Dev. 383 N.W.2d 357 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Citing Guillaume & Associates, the court said that “substantive rights should not be decided on technical grounds, particularly if no harm results.” The court’s reasoning is sound.
Guillaume & Associates, Inc. v. Don-John Co. 371 N.W.2d 15 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Guillaume & Associates, Inc. v. Don-John Co. 371 N.W.2d 15 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
See Guillaume & Associates, -63 (Minn.1983).
Enviro-Fab, Inc. v. Blandin Paper Co. 349 N.W.2d 842 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Enviro-Fab, Inc. v. Blandin Paper Co. 349 N.W.2d 842 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
The mechanic’s lien is to “protect those who furnish material or services for the improvement of another’s property * * Giullaume & Associates