Eischen Cabinet Co. v. Hildebrandt
Court of Appeals of Minnesota
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
- DLH, Inc. v. RussSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1997
- Ryan Contracting, Inc. v. Jag Investments, Inc.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 2001
- Rouse Mechanical, Inc. v. DahlCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 1992
- Northwest Wholesale Lumber, Inc. v. Citadel Co.Court of Appeals of Minnesota · 1987
- Pella Products, Inc. v. Arvig Telephone Co.Court of Appeals of Minnesota · 1992
3Cited by1 opinion
- Eischen Cabinet Co. v. HildebrandtSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2004