Legal Opinion

Javinsky v. Commissioner of Administration

Court of Appeals of Minnesota

Decided January 2, 2007No. A06-109PublishedCited by 6 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

WORKE, Judge.

On appeal in this public-contract dispute, appellant Allen Javinsky argues that (1) the district court improperly denied appellant’s request for mandamus and declaratory relief, and (2) summary judgment was improper on appellant’s promissory-estoppel claim. Because appellant failed to timely appeal the district court’s denial of his mandamus and declaratory relief claims and because he has not provided evidence of reasonable, detrimental reliance in his promissory-estoppel claim, we affirm.

FACTS

In 1999, respondent Commissioner, Minnesota Department of Administration (DOA)…

2Cases cited12 opinions

  1. Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. MacKeySupreme Court of the United States · 1956
  2. Martens v. Minnesota Mining & Manufacturing Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 2000
  3. Lubbers v. AndersonSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1995
  4. Nicollet Restoration, Inc. v. City of St. PaulSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1995
  5. Olson v. Synergistic Technologies Business Systems, Inc.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 2001

7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. Meriwether Minnesota Land & Timber, LLC v. StateCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 2012
  2. Sterling State Bank v. Maas Commercial Properties, LLCCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 2013
  3. Seegert v. Monson Trucking, Inc.District Court, D. Minnesota · 2010
  4. Contractors Edge, Inc. v. City of MankatoSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2015
  5. Contractors Edge, Inc. v. City of MankatoSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2015

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API