Legal Opinion

Eischen Cabinet Co. v. Hildebrandt

Court of Appeals of Minnesota

Decided November 25, 2003No. A03-358PublishedCited by 1 opinion

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

KLAPHAKE, Judge.

Appellant Eischen Cabinet Company challenges the district court’s grant of partial summary judgment in favor of respondents John and Marlene Hildebrandt, asserting that the district court erred in its interpretation of the mechanics’ lien statute, Minn.Stat. § 514.08 (2002), and that genuine issues of material fact remain, precluding summary judgment. Because the district court did not err in construing the mechanics’ lien statute to require strict adherence to the requirements for creating a lien and because there are no genuine issues of material fact, we affirm.

FACTS

A…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. DLH, Inc. v. RussSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1997
  2. Ryan Contracting, Inc. v. Jag Investments, Inc.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 2001
  3. Rouse Mechanical, Inc. v. DahlCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 1992
  4. Northwest Wholesale Lumber, Inc. v. Citadel Co.Court of Appeals of Minnesota · 1987
  5. Pella Products, Inc. v. Arvig Telephone Co.Court of Appeals of Minnesota · 1992

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. Eischen Cabinet Co. v. HildebrandtSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2004

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

Powered by the Exa API