Brink v. Smith Companies Const., Inc.

12 Citing cases

  1. Frazier v. Bickford

    Case No. 14-cv-3843 (SRN/JJK) (D. Minn. Oct. 15, 2015)   Cited 6 times

    Judicial dictum is entitled to much greater weight than mere obiter dictum and should not be lightly disregarded." Brink v. Smith Companies Const., Inc., 703 N.W.2d 871, 877-78 (Minn. Ct. App. 2005) (quotations and citations omitted); Passmore v. Astrue, 533 F.3d 658, 661 (8th Cir. 2008) (concluding a court need not follow dicta and defining obiter dictum as "a judicial comment made while delivering a judicial opinion, but one that is unnecessary to the decision in the case and therefore not precedential." (quotations and citations omitted)).

  2. Bergen v. Grinnell Mut. Reinsurance Co.

    946 F. Supp. 2d 867 (D. Minn. 2013)   Cited 2 times

    Careful review makes clear, therefore, that the identity of the “complaining party” had no impact on Singsaas and related decisions, and use of that term was simply obiter dictum, “something said in passing” as shorthand to refer to the underlying plaintiffs. Brink v. Smith Cos. Constr., Inc., 703 N.W.2d 871, 878 (Minn.Ct.App.2005). Singsaas and its progeny did not address the precise issue presented here: whether damage to property caused by an occurrence while an insurance policy was in force is covered when the damage is asserted by a third-party who obtained the property after the policy expired.

  3. Weston v. McWilliams Associates, Inc.

    716 N.W.2d 634 (Minn. 2006)   Cited 91 times
    Holding that interpreting a negative statement as a positive one "goes beyond interpretation and actually modifies the words of the statute"

    That different facts could present a case where a builder had no time to bring contribution and indemnity claims while the underlying damages claim goes forward is not mere speculation, but is born out by case law. See Brink v. Smith Cos. Constr., Inc., 703 N.W.2d 871, 879 (Minn.App. 2005) (finding the repose provision of section 541.051 unconstitutional when it bars a contribution and indemnity claim based on a viable statutory warranty claim). Such a factual circumstance is not before us, though, and for that reason we would do well to limit our holding.

  4. 14 Cherrywood, LLC v. City of North Oaks

    993 N.W.2d 287 (Minn. Ct. App. 2023)   Cited 1 times

    The comment therefore does not control our holding here. SeeBrink v. Smith Cos. Constr. , 703 N.W.2d 871, 877–78 (Minn. App. 2005) (observing that dictum unrelated to the dispositive issue is entitled to little weight). And the other primary cases Cherrywood cites do not address alternative writs and their relation to section 586.09 at all.

  5. Smallwood v. State

    966 N.W.2d 257 (Minn. Ct. App. 2021)   Cited 2 times

    Although the court said that "under the plain meaning of the [HRA], liability arises only when a person or entity actually discloses a health record" (emphasis added), this was dicta and not binding. Id. at 302 ; Brink v. Smith Cos. Const., Inc. , 703 N.W.2d 871, 876 (Minn. App. 2005), review denied (Minn. Dec. 21, 2005).

  6. Carlson v. Wheelock

    No. A18-1380 (Minn. Ct. App. Aug. 12, 2019)

    Whether a statute is unconstitutional presents a question of law subject to de novo review. Brink v. Smith Cos. Constr., Inc. 703 N.W.2d 871, 874 (Minn. App. 2005), review denied (Minn. Dec. 21, 2005).

  7. State v. Scott

    A17-1556 (Minn. Ct. App. Sep. 10, 2018)

    Appellant asserts that our statement in Carse was dictum. See Brink v. Smith Cos. Constr., 703 N.W.2d 871, 877 (Minn. App. 2005) ("[D]ictum, if it contains an expression of the opinion of the court, is entitled to considerable weight." (quotation omitted)), review denied (Minn.

  8. State v. Atwood

    914 N.W.2d 422 (Minn. Ct. App. 2018)   Cited 3 times
    Stating that obiter dictum is not precedential

    Dictum can be either judicial dictum or obiter dictum, depending on how involved the parties’ arguments and the court’s analysis are. "Obiter dictum is simply Latin for something said in passing." Brink v. Smith Cos. Constr., Inc. , 703 N.W.2d 871, 878 (Minn. App. 2005) (quotation omitted). Black’s Law Dictionary defines obiter dictum as "[a] judicial comment made while delivering a judicial opinion, but one that is unnecessary to the decision in the case and therefore not precedential (although it may be considered persuasive)."

  9. Otremba v. City of E. Bethel

    A16-0722 (Minn. Ct. App. Nov. 28, 2016)

    Judicial dictum is an expression of the court's opinion on a question "directly involved and argued by counsel though not entirely necessary to the decision." Brink v. Smith Cos. Constr., 703 N.W.2d 871, 877 (Minn. App. 2005). Dictum that "contains an expression of the opinion of the court" is entitled considerable weight.

  10. State v. Poetschke

    750 N.W.2d 301 (Minn. Ct. App. 2008)   Cited 2 times

    While not essential to the holding in Heaney, we find the conclusion of the supreme court applicable and persuasive here. See Brink v. Smith Cos. Constr., Inc., 703 N.W.2d 871, 877-78 (Minn.App. 2005) ("Judicial dictum involves a court's expression of its opinion on a question directly involved and argued by counsel though not entirely necessary to the decision" and is "entitled to much greater weight than mere obiter dictum and should not be lightly disregarded." (quotations and citations omitted)), review denied (Minn.