Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
10 Minnesota opinions name it 2 courts 1985–2015 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 |
|---|---|---|
Peterson v. Bendix Home Systems, Inc.green2 sentences2014In Peterson we held that ”[t]o establish a warranty claim the plaintiff must basically prove: the existence of a warranty, a breach, and a causal link between the breach and the alleged harm." 318 N.W.2d at 52-53 . 2014“To establish a warranty claim the plaintiff must basically prove: the existence of a warranty, a breach, and a causal link between the breach and the alleged harm.” Peterson v. Bendix Home Sys., Inc., 318 N.W.2d 50, 52-53 (Minn. 1982). | 5 | 6 |
Imdieke v. Blenda-Life, Inc.green1 sentence1989Imdieke v. Blenda-Life, Inc., 363 N.W.2d 121, 124 (Minn.Ct.App.1985), pet. for rev. denied (Minn. Apr. 26, 1985). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Minnesota. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Vlahos v. R&I Construction of Bloomington, Inc.
green
2 sentences2015Vlahos was about the interpretation of Minn. Stat. § 541.051 , subd. 4, which provides that actions based on breach of a statutory warranty or an express written warranty “shall be brought within two years of the discovery of the breach.” In Vlahos, we held that the statute of limitations on a warranty claim began “to run when the homeowner discovers, or should have discovered, the builder’s refusal or inability to ensure the home is free from major construction defects.” 676 N.W.2d at 678 . 2015Vlahos was about the interpretation of Minn.Stat. § 541.051, subd. 4, which provides that actions based on breach of a statutory warranty or an express written warranty “shall be brought within two years of the discovery of the breach.” Ih Vlahos , we held that the statute of limitations on a warranty claim began “to run when the homeowner discovers, or should have discovered, the builder’s refusal or inability to ensure the home is free from major construction defects.” 676 N.W.2d at 678 . | 2 | 2015–2015 |
Lyon Financial Services, Incor v. Illinois Paper and Copier Comp
green
1 sentence2014Id. at 767 . | 1 | 2014–2014 |
Hapka v. Paquin Farms
green
1 sentence1993Under Hapka v. Paquin Farms, 458 N.W.2d 683 (Minn.1990), any claim that the judgment creditors have is a warranty claim. | 1 | 1993–1993 |
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.