Ryan Contracting, Inc. v. JAG INVESTMENTS, INC.
Court of Appeals of Minnesota
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
DANIEL F. FOLEY * , Judge
Appellants challenge the district court’s denial of their motion to dismiss, arguing that the court lacks personal jurisdiction over them in this mechanic’s lien action, due to improper service of process. We affirm in part and reverse in part.
FACTS
Defendant Jagodzinski Development Corporation (JDC) and appellant JAG Investments, Inc. (JAG) entered into a joint venture to develop certain real property. JDC contracted with respondent Ryan Contracting to perform street construction on the residential development project. Ryan hired respondent GMH Asphalt…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Patterson v. Wu Family Corp.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 2000
- Emery v. HertigSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1895
- Stoebe v. Merastar Insurance Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1996
- Cox v. First National Bank of AitkinCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 1987
- RB Thompson, Jr. Lumber v. Windsor Dev.Court of Appeals of Minnesota · 1986
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by2 opinions
- Ryan Contracting, Inc. v. Jag Investments, Inc.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 2001
- Ryan Contracting, Inc. v. Jag Investments, Inc.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 2001