Legal Opinion
Housing & Redevelopment Authority for Crookston v. Agassiz Construction, Inc.
Court of Appeals of Minnesota
Decided November 5, 1991No. C6-91-600PublishedCited by 6 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
HUSPENI, Judge.
On appeal from summary judgment, appellants allege the trial court erred when it applied the UCC statute of limitations to this case and barred their third-party indemnification actions which were based on a breach of warranty that arose out of a sale of goods. We affirm.
FACTS
In March 1990, respondent Housing and Redevelopment Authority for Crookston, Mn (HRA) contracted with appellant Engineers-Architects, PC and Cal Marjamaa (Engineers/Architeets) to provide engineering and architectural services in remodeling a building. In May 1981, HRA contracted with appellant…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Hapka v. Paquin FarmsSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1990
- Superwood Corp. v. Siempelkamp Corp.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1981
- Sartori v. Harnischfeger Corp.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1988
- Niccum v. Hydra Tool Corp.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1989
- Calder v. City of CrystalSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1982
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by6 opinions
- City of Willmar v. Short-Elliott-Hendrickson, Inc.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1994
- Minnesota Mining & Manufacturing Co. v. Nishika Ltd., Texas Court of Appeals, 9th District (Beaumont)1994
- Hydrite Chemical Co. v. Calumet Lubricants Co.Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1995
- Chantilly Partners v. James A. Federline, Inc.Fairfax County Circuit Court · 1991
- City of Willmar v. Short-Elliott-Hendrickson, Inc.Court of Appeals of Minnesota · 1993
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.