Cited by

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

144 citing documents.

Marriage of Sammons v. Sammons 642 N.W.2d 450 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
Marriage of Sammons v. Sammons 642 N.W.2d 450 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
(stating that due process guarantees are the same under both state and federal constitutions).
McCollum v. State 640 N.W.2d 610 Minn. 2002
McCollum v. State 640 N.W.2d 610 Minn. 2002
“The due process protection provided under the Minnesota Constitution is identical to the due process guaranteed under the Constitution of the United States.”
Fosselman v. Commissioner of Human Services 612 N.W.2d 456 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
Fosselman v. Commissioner of Human Services 612 N.W.2d 456 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
Boutin v. LaFleur 591 N.W.2d 711 Minn. 1999
Boutin v. LaFleur 591 N.W.2d 711 Minn. 1999
975 , 108 L.Ed.2d 100 (1990) (citation omitted); (stating that “[t]he due process protection provided under the Minnesota Constitution is identical to the due process guaranteed under the Constitution of the United States.”).
Fisher v. County of Rock 580 N.W.2d 510 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
Fisher v. County of Rock 580 N.W.2d 510 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
(quoting Pacific Indemnity Co. v. Thompson-Yaeger, Inc., (giving this definition as a “common sense interpretation” of the phrase)).
Red Wing Motel Investors v. Red Wing Fire Department 552 N.W.2d 295 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
Red Wing Motel Investors v. Red Wing Fire Department 552 N.W.2d 295 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
Humenansky v. Minnesota Board of Medical Examiners 525 N.W.2d 559 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
Humenansky v. Minnesota Board of Medical Examiners 525 N.W.2d 559 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
Safety, (due process guarantees are same under both state and federal constitutions); (same).
Wirth v. M.A. Mortenson/Shal Associates 520 N.W.2d 173 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
Wirth v. M.A. Mortenson/Shal Associates 520 N.W.2d 173 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
*177 The legislature may constitutionally abolish a common law right without providing a reasonable substitute if “it is pursuing a permissible, legitimate legislative objective.” see also Schweich v. Ziegler, Inc., (recognizing that remedies are not vested rights and parties thus do not have a vested right to particular remedies).
Davis v. Commissioner of Public Safety 509 N.W.2d 380 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
Followed Davis v. Commissioner of Public Safety 509 N.W.2d 380 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
State v. Christie 494 N.W.2d 492 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
State v. Christie 494 N.W.2d 492 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
Kline v. Doughboy Recreational Manufacturing Co. 495 N.W.2d 435 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
Kline v. Doughboy Recreational Manufacturing Co. 495 N.W.2d 435 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
Likewise, a crane was held to be an improvement to real property even though it could be dismantled without destroying the building to which it was attached.
State v. Morrow 492 N.W.2d 539 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
Wiita v. Potlatch Corp. 492 N.W.2d 270 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
State v. Morrow 492 N.W.2d 539 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
Wiita v. Potlatch Corp. 492 N.W.2d 270 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
(crane permanently installed in mining operation); Kemp, d at 85 (electrical cable permanently “affixed” to electrical system).
Ritter v. Abbey-Etna MacHine Co. 483 N.W.2d 91 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
Ritter v. Abbey-Etna MacHine Co. 483 N.W.2d 91 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
for example, an overhead rail crane used in the crusher area of a mine facility was found to be an improvement.
Lloyd F. Smith Co., Inc. v. Den-Tal-Ez 478 N.W.2d 510 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
Lloyd F. Smith Co., Inc. v. Den-Tal-Ez 478 N.W.2d 510 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
Housing & Redevelopment Authority for Crookston v. Agassiz Construction, Inc. 476 N.W.2d 781 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
Housing & Redevelopment Authority for Crookston v. Agassiz Construction, Inc. 476 N.W.2d 781 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
City of Willmar v. Short-Elliott-Hendrickson, Inc. 475 N.W.2d 73 Minn. 1991
City of Willmar v. Short-Elliott-Hendrickson, Inc. 475 N.W.2d 73 Minn. 1991
Willette v. the Mayo Foundation 458 N.W.2d 120 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
Willette v. the Mayo Foundation 458 N.W.2d 120 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
Furthermore, the supreme court upheld a statutory limitation period against a state remedies clause challenge, holding that the legitimate legislative objective of avoiding litigation of stale claims was served by Minn.Stat.
Horvath v. Liquid Controls Corp. 455 N.W.2d 60 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
Horvath v. Liquid Controls Corp. 455 N.W.2d 60 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
(common sense interpretation to be given phrase “improvement to real property”).
Hartford Fire Insurance Co. v. Westinghouse Electric Corp. 450 N.W.2d 183 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
Hartford Fire Insurance Co. v. Westinghouse Electric Corp. 450 N.W.2d 183 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
See, (70 ton removable crane); Pacific Indem.
Thorp v. Price Bros. Co. 441 N.W.2d 817 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Thorp v. Price Bros. Co. 441 N.W.2d 817 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
which involved a crane located in a mining facility, the plaintiffs had presented evidence that the crane could be dismantled without destroying or tearing down the building in which it was situated and that similar cranes had been relocated.
Farnham v. Nasby Agri-Systems, Inc. 437 N.W.2d 759 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Farnham v. Nasby Agri-Systems, Inc. 437 N.W.2d 759 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
988, 989 (D.Minn.1987) aff'd 845 F.2d 1027 (8th Cir.1988); an overhead rail crane, an electrical transformer vault, rev’d on other grounds, furnaces, Pacific Indemnity Co., d at 554 ; a switch gear compartment which is part of a large electrical transmission system, Kemp

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by