Minnesota Statutes

Minn. Stat. § 302A.729 (2026)

[Repealed]

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MN-REVrevisor.mn.gov (official) Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

[Repealed, 1991 c 49 s 28]

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 3 cases, 1990–2003 · leading case: Podvin v. Jamar Co., 655 N.W.2d 645 (Minn. Ct. App. 2003).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Podvin v. Jamar Co., 655 N.W.2d 645 (Minn. Ct. App. 2003). · cites it 8× “5 (2000), could not be accomplished because the claims against the dissolved corporations were barred by Minn.Stat. §§ 302A.729, .781 (1984). The district court denied the motion to dismiss, holding that the personal-injury claims came within the exception created by MinmStat.”

Cent. States, Se. & Sw. Areas Pension Fund v. Minneapolis Van & Warehouse Co., 764 F. Supp. 1289 (N.D. Ill. 1991). “727 — instead such creditors are afforded two years to sue under Minn.Stat. § 302A.729. Here Pension Fund was not given notice of the dissolution (see Bruese-hoff’s statement in Minneapolis Van’s Articles of Dissolution, P.”

Oak Ridge Care Ctr., Inc. v. Minnesota Dep't of Human Servs., 452 N.W.2d 703 (Minn. Ct. App. 1990). · cites it 6× “Minn.Stat. § 302A.729, subd. 2 (1982). It is undisputed that the appellant 302A corporations did not give notice to the Department of the filing of their notices of intent to dissolve.”

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.