Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Sartori v. Harnischfeger Corp., 432 N.W.2d 448.

144 citing documents.

Turner v. Commissioner of Revenue 840 N.W.2d 205 Minn. 2013
In re the Welfare of B.A.H. 829 N.W.2d 431 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
In re the Welfare of B.A.H. 829 N.W.2d 431 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
“The due process protection provided under the Minnesota Constitution is identical to the due process guaranteed under the Constitution of the United States.”
State v. Ness 819 N.W.2d 219 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
State v. Ness 819 N.W.2d 219 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
“The due process protection provided under the Minnesota Constitution is identical to the due process guaranteed under the Constitution of the United States.”
Mitchell v. Smith 817 N.W.2d 742 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
Mitchell v. Smith 817 N.W.2d 742 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
State v. Krause 817 N.W.2d 136 Minn. 2012
State v. Krause 817 N.W.2d 136 Minn. 2012
“The due process protection provided under the Minnesota Constitution is identical to the due proces[s] guaranteed under the Constitution of the United States.”
State v. Wiseman 816 N.W.2d 689 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
State v. Wiseman 816 N.W.2d 689 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
Schatz v. Interfaith Care Center 811 N.W.2d 643 Minn. 2012
Schatz v. Interfaith Care Center 811 N.W.2d 643 Minn. 2012
Anderson v. Commissioner of Health 811 N.W.2d 162 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
Anderson v. Commissioner of Health 811 N.W.2d 162 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
In re Individual 35W Bridge Litigation 806 N.W.2d 820 Minn. 2011
In re Individual 35W Bridge Litigation 806 N.W.2d 820 Minn. 2011
Rickert v. State 795 N.W.2d 236 Minn. 2011
Siewert v. Northern States Power Co. 793 N.W.2d 272 Minn. 2011
Siewert v. Northern States Power Co. 793 N.W.2d 272 Minn. 2011
v. Aquila Inc., (holding that a crane fabricated on a mining facility and operated for 19 years qualified as “a permanent addition to or betterment of real property”).
In Re Individual 35w Bridge Litigation 786 N.W.2d 890 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
In Re Individual 35w Bridge Litigation 786 N.W.2d 890 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
1(a), as a statute of repose that “is designed to eliminate suits against architects, designers and contractors who have completed the work, turned the improvement to real property over to the owners, and no longer have any interest or control in it.”
Nexus v. Swift 785 N.W.2d 771 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
Nexus v. Swift 785 N.W.2d 771 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
Because statutes are presumed constitutional, the party challenging the constitutionality of a statute “bears the very heavy burden of demonstrating beyond a reasonable doubt that the statute is unconstitutional,”
Obara v. Minnesota Department of Health 758 N.W.2d 873 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
Obara v. Minnesota Department of Health 758 N.W.2d 873 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
“The due process protection provided under the Minnesota Constitution is identical to the due process guaranteed under the Constitution of the United States.”
Mertins v. Commissioner of Natural Resources 755 N.W.2d 329 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
Mertins v. Commissioner of Natural Resources 755 N.W.2d 329 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
Fosselman v. Comm’r of Human Servs.
State Farm Fire & Casualty v. Aquila Inc. 718 N.W.2d 879 Minn. 2006
State Farm Fire & Casualty v. Aquila Inc. 718 N.W.2d 879 Minn. 2006
This court has adopted a common-sense interpretation of the phrase “improvement to real property.” Pacific Indemnity Co. v. Thompson-Yaeger, Inc.
Lietz v. Northern States Power Co. 718 N.W.2d 865 Minn. 2006
Lietz v. Northern States Power Co. 718 N.W.2d 865 Minn. 2006
This court has defined such an improvement as “[A] permanent addition to or betterment of real property that enhances its capital value and that involves the expenditure of labor or money and is designed to make the property more useful or valuable as distinguished from ordinary repairs.” (quoting Pac.
Weston v. McWilliams & Associates, Inc. 716 N.W.2d 634 Minn. 2006
Weston v. McWilliams & Associates, Inc. 716 N.W.2d 634 Minn. 2006
But we have said that “it is extremely doubtful we would hold a statute unconstitutional if the attorney general had not been properly notified.”
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
See, Hodder v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., , 830 n. 3 (Minn. 1988); Bulau v. Hector Plumbing & Heating Co.
Brink v. Smith Companies Construction, Inc. 703 N.W.2d 871 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
Brink v. Smith Companies Construction, Inc. 703 N.W.2d 871 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
“A party who challenges a Minnesota statute as unconstitutional bears the burden of establishing beyond a reasonable doubt that the statute violates some constitutional provision.”
Sweet v. Commissioner of Human Services 702 N.W.2d 314 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
Sweet v. Commissioner of Human Services 702 N.W.2d 314 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
“The due process protection provided under the Minnesota Constitution is identical to the due process guaranteed under the Constitution of the United States.”
Weston v. McWilliams & Associates, Inc. 694 N.W.2d 558 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
Weston v. McWilliams & Associates, Inc. 694 N.W.2d 558 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
see also Koes v. Advanced Design, Inc., (determining dat'e of discovery for a statute of limitations, and noting common effect of repose statutes to ultimately bar some litigation of claims before injuries are ever discovered), review denied (Minn. Feb.
Allianz Insurance Co. v. PM Services of Eden Prairie, Inc. 691 N.W.2d 79 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
Allianz Insurance Co. v. PM Services of Eden Prairie, Inc. 691 N.W.2d 79 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
The Minnesota Supreme Court defines an improvement to real property as “a permanent addition to or betterment of real property that enhances its capital value and that involves the expenditure of labor or money and is designed to make the property more useful or valuable as distinguished from ordinary repairs.” (quoting Pac.
Jensen-Re Partnership v. Superior Shores Lakehome Ass'n 681 N.W.2d 42 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
Jensen-Re Partnership v. Superior Shores Lakehome Ass'n 681 N.W.2d 42 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
Additionally, the supreme court, in analyzing the legislative intent behind Minn. Stat. § 541.051 , found that the purpose of the statute is to eliminate stale suits against “architects, designers and contractors who have completed the work, turned the improvement to real property over to the owners, and no longer have any interest or control in it.”
Taney v. Independent School District No. 624 673 N.W.2d 497 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
Taney v. Independent School District No. 624 673 N.W.2d 497 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
Co., (), review denied (Minn. June 10, 1992).
Twinco Romax Automotive Warehouse, Inc. v. Olson General Contractors, Inc. 643 N.W.2d 338 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
Twinco Romax Automotive Warehouse, Inc. v. Olson General Contractors, Inc. 643 N.W.2d 338 Minn. Ct. App. 2002