Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Hydra-Mac, Inc. v. Onan Corp., 450 N.W.2d 913.

90 citing documents.

Capital Construction, LLC, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
SECURA Insurance Company, as subrogee of Lance Goettl d/b/a TLG Farm Partnership v. Deere & Company, ... Minn. Ct. App. 2024
SECURA Insurance Company, as subrogee of Lance Goettl d/b/a TLG Farm Partnership v. Deere & Company, ... Minn. Ct. App. 2024
Hydra-Mac, -17 (Minn. 1990).
Lagoon Partners, LLC, a Minnesota limited liability company v. Silver Cinemas Acquisition Co., a Delaware ... Minn. Ct. App. 2023
Lagoon Partners, LLC, a Minnesota limited liability company v. Silver Cinemas Acquisition Co., a Delaware ... Minn. Ct. App. 2023
A plaintiff seeking damages for lost profits must prove the amount of such damages only “to a reasonable probability,” and “[t]he law does not require mathematical precision in proving lost profits.” Hydra- Mac, 921 (Minn. 1990).
TestResources, Inc., Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
Hydra-Mac, Inc., v. Onan Corp.
Aspenwood Condominium of Duluth, Inc., Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
Hydra-Mac, 919 (Minn. 199 0).
Steven W. Trisco, et al., Appellants, vs. County of Douglas, Respondent. Minn. Ct. App. 2022
Hydra-Mac, (citing Northern Petrochemical Co., d at 410).
Raymond Oswald, et al., Appellants, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
If the Oswalds were attempting to argue equitable estoppel instead of equitable tolling, they would have the burden of provin g: “(1) that promises or inducements were made; (2) that it reasonably relied upon the promises; and (3) that it will be harmed if estoppel is not applied.” Hyrda-Mac
Jill Hansen, et al., Appellants, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
“Fra udulent concealment tolls the statute of limitations until the party discovers, or has a reasonable opportunity to discover, the concealed defect.” Hydra-Mac
J.C. Allen Co., Inc., Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Ass’n, (quoting Hydra-Mac, ), aff’d, .
Manor Warehouse & Delivery, Inc., Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
“A party seeking to invoke the doctrine of equitable estoppel has the burden of proving three elements: (1) that promises or inducements were made; (2) that it reasonably relied upon the promises; and, (3) that it will be harmed if estoppel is not applied.” Hydra-Mac
Scott G. Erickson, et al., Appellants, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Hydra-Mac, -20 (Minn. 1990).
In re the Marriage of: Benjamin Robert Lewis, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
See Hydra-Mac, (stating that contractual language “should never be interpreted in isolation, but rather in the context of the entire agreement”).
Sherwood Forest, Inc., Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
ures of any witness in determining damages, and as long as its finding is within the mathematical limitations established by the various witnesses and is otherwise reasonably supported by the evidence as a whole, such finding must be sustained.” Fudally v. Ching Johnson Builders, Inc. , 360 N.W .2d 4 436, 439 (Minn. App. 1985) (quotation omitted); see also Hydra-Mac, (affirming damages award when plaintiff presented sufficient evidence to support a reasonable inference that its claim for lost pr
Joseph W. Frederick v. Kay L. Wallerich Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Joseph W. Frederick v. Kay L. Wallerich Minn. Ct. App. 2016
See Hydra-Mac, (holding that a claim of fraudulent concealment requires the party to show that the cause of action was actually concealed).
Kenneth S. Benigni v. St. Louis County, State of Minnesota, by Department of Human Services, Lake Superior Community … Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Kenneth S. Benigni v. St. Louis County, State of Minnesota, by Department of Human Services, Lake Superior Community … Minn. Ct. App. 2016
But fraudulent concealment tolls the statute of limitations only “until the party discovers, or has a reasonable opportunity to discover the concealed defect.” Hydra- Mac
Melrose Gates, LLC v. Chor Moua 875 N.W.2d 814 Minn. 2016
Melrose Gates, LLC v. Chor Moua 875 N.W.2d 814 Minn. 2016
Alan Klapmeier v. Cirrus Industries, Inc., Cirrus Holding Company, Ltd. Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Alan Klapmeier v. Cirrus Industries, Inc., Cirrus Holding Company, Ltd. Minn. Ct. App. 2015
The amount of damages must be proven “to a reasonable certainty,” but “[t]he law does not require mathematical precision in proving lost profits.” Hydra- Mac, Inc., v. Onan Corp., (stating that if loss has been demonstrated, difficulty in proving the amount of damages is not fatal if a reasonable basis exists to satisfy that burden).
Lions Park Apartments, LLC v. Midwest Family Mutual Insurance Company Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Lions Park Apartments, LLC v. Midwest Family Mutual Insurance Company Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Robert R Elliott, individually, and as trustee of the Robert R. Elliott Revocable Trust and the Elliott Mandelheim … Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Robert R Elliott, individually, and as trustee of the Robert R. Elliott Revocable Trust and the Elliott Mandelheim … Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Minnesota Laborers Health & Welfare Fund v. Granite Re, Inc. 844 N.W.2d 509 Minn. 2014
Minnesota Laborers Health & Welfare Fund v. Granite Re, Inc. 844 N.W.2d 509 Minn. 2014
Fraudulent concealment “tolls the statute of limitations until the party discovers, or has a reasonable opportunity to discover, the concealed defect.” Hydra-Mac, see also Wild, 302 Minn. at 450 , d at 795 (“Fraudulent concealment ...
Poppler v. Wright Hennepin Cooperative Electric Ass'n 834 N.W.2d 527 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
Poppler v. Wright Hennepin Cooperative Electric Ass'n 834 N.W.2d 527 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
See, e.g., HydraMac, Cardinal Consulting Co. v. Circo Resorts, Inc., Northern Petrochemical Co. v. Thorsen & Thorshov, Inc., 297 Minn. 118, 125
Ram Mutual Insurance Co. v. Rohde 820 N.W.2d 1 Minn. 2012
Ram Mutual Insurance Co. v. Rohde 820 N.W.2d 1 Minn. 2012
To this end, provisions of a lease “should never be interpreted in isolation, but rather in the context of the entire agreement.” Hydra-Mac
Jane Doe 43C v. Diocese of New Ulm 787 N.W.2d 680 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
Jane Doe 43C v. Diocese of New Ulm 787 N.W.2d 680 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
Hydra-Mac, aff 'd in part, rev’d in part on other grounds
SINGELMAN v. St. Francis Medical Center 777 N.W.2d 540 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
SINGELMAN v. St. Francis Medical Center 777 N.W.2d 540 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
But equitable estoppel may not apply when the party seeking estoppel “has failed to exercise due diligence in filing its action after the grounds giving rise to the claimed estoppel have ceased to exist.” Hydra-Mac
Marriage of Grachek v. Grachek 750 N.W.2d 328 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
Marriage of Grachek v. Grachek 750 N.W.2d 328 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
See Hydra-Mac, (reiterating the principle that language in a contract “should never be interpreted in isolation, but rather in the context of the entire agreement.”); Metro Office Parks Co. v. Control Data Corp., 295 Minn. 348, 352 , (stating that “[wjords, phrases, or sentences [in a cont
Pollard v. Southdale Gardens of Edina Condominium Ass'n 698 N.W.2d 449 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
Pollard v. Southdale Gardens of Edina Condominium Ass'n 698 N.W.2d 449 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
American Family Insurance Group v. Kiess 697 N.W.2d 617 Minn. 2005
Birch Publications, Inc. v. RMZ of St. Cloud, Inc. 683 N.W.2d 869 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
Birch Publications, Inc. v. RMZ of St. Cloud, Inc. 683 N.W.2d 869 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
Bank Midwest, Minnesota, Iowa, N.A. v. Lipetzky 661 N.W.2d 290 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
Bank Midwest, Minnesota, Iowa, N.A. v. Lipetzky 661 N.W.2d 290 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
Northern States Power Co. v. City of Mendota Heights 646 N.W.2d 919 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
Northern States Power Co. v. City of Mendota Heights 646 N.W.2d 919 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
Hydra-Mac, Transamerica Ins.
Heidbreder v. Carton 645 N.W.2d 355 Minn. 2002
Heidbreder v. Carton 645 N.W.2d 355 Minn. 2002