11 Minnesota opinions name it 2 courts 1915–2016 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Minnesota courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Trapp v. Hancuhgreen2 sentences2014When damages are not readily ascertainable, or when a claim did not allow for preverdict interest prior to the 1984 amendment, preverdict interest should be calculated exclusively under section 549.09, subd. 1(b), “from the time of the commencement of the action or a demand for arbitration, or the time of a written notice of claim, whichever occurs first.” See Trapp, 587 N.W.2d at 64 . 2012Minn. Stat. § 549.09 , subd. 1, requires interest to begin accruing on the earliest of (1) “the commencement of the action,” (2) “a demand for arbitration,” or (3) “the time of a written notice of claim.” See also Trapp v. Hancuh, 587 N.W.2d 61, 68 (MinnApp. 1998) (stating that, under the statute, “prejudgment interest does not begin to run until an action is brought”). | 1 | 2 |
Lienhard v. Stategreen1 sentence2014“In 1984, . . . section 549.09 was amended to allow pre-verdict interest irrespective of a defendant’s ability to ascertain the amount of damages for which he might be held liable.” Lienhard v. State, 431 N.W.2d 861, 865 (Minn. 1988); see Skifstrom, 524 N.W.2d at 296–97 (following Lienhard); see also Myers v. Hearth Techs., Inc., 621 N.W.2d 787, 794 (Minn. App. 2001) (following Lienhard and Skifstrom), review denied (Minn. Mar. 13, 2001); Cox v. Crown CoCo, Inc., 18 544 N.W.2d 490 , 500–01 (Minn. App. 1996) (same). | 1 | 1 |
Myers v. Hearth Technologies, Inc.green1 sentence2014“In 1984, . . . section 549.09 was amended to allow pre-verdict interest irrespective of a defendant’s ability to ascertain the amount of damages for which he might be held liable.” Lienhard v. State, 431 N.W.2d 861, 865 (Minn. 1988); see Skifstrom, 524 N.W.2d at 296–97 (following Lienhard); see also Myers v. Hearth Techs., Inc., 621 N.W.2d 787, 794 (Minn. App. 2001) (following Lienhard and Skifstrom), review denied (Minn. Mar. 13, 2001); Cox v. Crown CoCo, Inc., 18 544 N.W.2d 490 , 500–01 (Minn. App. 1996) (same). | 1 | 1 |
Summit Court, Inc. v. Northern States Power Co.green1 sentence2014The statute provides that, generally, “[e]xcept as otherwise provided by contract or allowed by law, preverdict, preaward, or prereport interest on pecuniary damages shall be computed as provided in paragraph (c) from the time of the commencement of the action or a demand for arbitration, or the time of a written notice of claim, whichever occurs first.” Before the 1984 amendment of section 549.09 “[a] plaintiff [was] entitled to prejudgment interest on a final judgment where the damages claim [was] liquidated, or, if unliquidated, where the damages were readily ascertainable by computation or | 1 | 1 |
Skifstrom v. City of Coon Rapidsgreen2 sentences2014The statute provides that, generally, “[e]xcept as otherwise provided by contract or allowed by law, preverdict, preaward, or prereport interest on pecuniary damages shall be computed as provided in paragraph (c) from the time of the commencement of the action or a demand for arbitration, or the time of a written notice of claim, whichever occurs first.” Before the 1984 amendment of section 549.09 “[a] plaintiff [was] entitled to prejudgment interest on a final judgment where the damages claim [was] liquidated, or, if unliquidated, where the damages were readily ascertainable by computation or 2014“In 1984, . . . section 549.09 was amended to allow pre-verdict interest irrespective of a defendant’s ability to ascertain the amount of damages for which he might be held liable.” Lienhard v. State, 431 N.W.2d 861, 865 (Minn. 1988); see Skifstrom, 524 N.W.2d at 296–97 (following Lienhard); see also Myers v. Hearth Techs., Inc., 621 N.W.2d 787, 794 (Minn. App. 2001) (following Lienhard and Skifstrom), review denied (Minn. Mar. 13, 2001); Cox v. Crown CoCo, Inc., 18 544 N.W.2d 490 , 500–01 (Minn. App. 1996) (same). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Minnesota. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Wallin v. Letourneau
green
1 sentence2016Id. | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Cox v. Crown CoCo, Inc.
green
1 sentence2014“In 1984, . . . section 549.09 was amended to allow pre-verdict interest irrespective of a defendant’s ability to ascertain the amount of damages for which he might be held liable.” Lienhard v. State, 431 N.W.2d 861, 865 (Minn. 1988); see Skifstrom, 524 N.W.2d at 296–97 (following Lienhard); see also Myers v. Hearth Techs., Inc., 621 N.W.2d 787, 794 (Minn. App. 2001) (following Lienhard and Skifstrom), review denied (Minn. Mar. 13, 2001); Cox v. Crown CoCo, Inc., 18 544 N.W.2d 490 , 500–01 (Minn. App. 1996) (same). | 1 | 2014–2014 |
Donahue v. West Duluth Lodge No. 1478 of Loyal Order of Moose
green
2 sentences1996Id. at 286 , 241 N.W.2d at 814 . 3 Respondents acknowledge knowing that Schulte died in a snowmobile accident after he had been drinking “sociably” in their respective bars, but argue that this was not enough to give them reasonable notice of a possible dram-shop claim. 1996Id. at 286 , 241 N.W.2d at 814 . 3 Respondents acknowledge knowing that Schulte died in a snowmobile accident after he had been drinking “sociably” in their respective bars, but argue that this was not enough to give them reasonable notice of a possible dram-shop claim. | 1 | 1996–1996 |
White v. Johnson
green
1 sentence1994In so holding, this court noted, “the majority of the courts hold that running of the statute of limitations against one defendant on the plaintiffs claim does not bar a suit for eontri- *876 button against him.” 272 Minn, at 371, 137 N.W.2d at 679 . | 1 | 1994–1994 |
Kuhlman v. City of Fergus Falls
neutral
1 sentence1972It further provided that “[f]he provisions of section [1831] shall also apply when the claim is one for death by wrongful act or omission * * (Italics supplied.) Section 1831, also in effect at the time of the Kuhlman accident, provided, among other things, that a person who claimed damages from a city for an injury caused by a defective sidewalk should present a written notice of claim to the governing body of the city within 30 days after the injury and concluded that *454 “[n]o action therefor shall be maintained unless such notice has been given; or if commenced within ten days thereafter, | 1 | 1972–1972 |
Hughes v. Crean
neutral
1 sentence1972It further provided that “[f]he provisions of section [1831] shall also apply when the claim is one for death by wrongful act or omission * * (Italics supplied.) Section 1831, also in effect at the time of the Kuhlman accident, provided, among other things, that a person who claimed damages from a city for an injury caused by a defective sidewalk should present a written notice of claim to the governing body of the city within 30 days after the injury and concluded that *454 “[n]o action therefor shall be maintained unless such notice has been given; or if commenced within ten days thereafter, | 1 | 1972–1972 |
Spanel v. Mounds View School District No. 621
green
2 sentences1970No. 621, 264 Minn. 279 , 118 N. W. (2d) 795 , and Hirth was decided subsequent to Spanel (because of the date of the accident, Minn. St. 1961, § 465.09, was the applicable statute) but both involved a failure to serve a written notice of claim of any description at any time. 1970No. 621, 264 Minn. 279 , 118 N. W. (2d) 795 , and Hirth was decided subsequent to Spanel (because of the date of the accident, Minn. St. 1961, § 465.09, was the applicable statute) but both involved a failure to serve a written notice of claim of any description at any time. | 1 | 1970–1970 |
Joyce v. Village of Janesville
neutral
2 sentences1929This, together with the language employed in the title and body of the act, leaves no room to doubt the legislative purpose was that no person should be permitted to sue a municipality for *553 damages suffered through the negligence of any of its officers, agents, servants or employees, unless he has served a written notice of claim within the time specified in the act.” The next case is Joyce v. Village of Janesville, 132 Minn. 121 , 155 N. W. 1067 , L. 1929This, together with the language employed in the title and body of the act, leaves no room to doubt the legislative purpose was that no person should be permitted to sue a municipality for *553 damages suffered through the negligence of any of its officers, agents, servants or employees, unless he has served a written notice of claim within the time specified in the act.” The next case is Joyce v. Village of Janesville, 132 Minn. 121 , 155 N. W. 1067 , L. | 1 | 1929–1929 |
Baltimore & Ohio Railroad v. Leach
neutral
1 sentence1921Co. v. Leach, 249 U. S. 217 , 39 Sup. Ct. 254, 63 L. ed. 570, was an action for damages to cattle, in which the carrier alleged that the shipper had failed to serve a written notice of claim within the prescribed time. | 1 | 1921–1921 |
Diamond Iron Works v. City of Minneapolis
neutral
2 sentences1915Diamond Iron Works v. City of Minneapolis, 129 Minn. 267 , 152 N. W. 647 . 1915Diamond Iron Works v. City of Minneapolis, 129 Minn. 267 , 152 N. W. 647 . | 1 | 1915–1915 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.