Legal Opinion
City of Willmar v. Short-Elliott-Hendrickson, Inc.
Court of Appeals of Minnesota
Decided July 15, 1993No. C8-92-1614PublishedCited by 3 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
NORTON, Judge.
Appellant Clow Corporation challenges trial court’s refusal to grant it summary judgment dismissing respondent Short-Elliott-Hendrickson, Inc.’s cross-claim. Appellant argues that the trial court should have dismissed respondent’s cross-claim as untimely under Minn.Stat. § 336.2-725 (1990). We reverse the trial court’s refusal to grant summary judgment but affirm the trial court’s holding that section 336.2-725 is constitutional.
FACTS
In the mid-1970’s, the City of Willmar employed respondent Short-Elliott-Hen-drickson, Inc. (SEH) to recommend and design improvements to…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Pierringer v. HogerWisconsin Supreme Court · 1963
- State v. RussellSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1991
- Hapka v. Paquin FarmsSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1990
- Calder v. City of CrystalSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1982
- Lloyd F. Smith Co. v. Den-Tal-Ez, Inc.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1992
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- City of Willmar v. Short-Elliott-Hendrickson, Inc.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1994
- Patz v. St. Paul Fire and Marine Ins. Co.District Court, E.D. Wisconsin · 1993
- Eagan East Ltd. Partnership v. Powers Investigations, Inc.Court of Appeals of Minnesota · 1996