Niewind v. Carlson

4 Citing cases

  1. Fischer v. Colorow Health Care, LLC

    2016 COA 130 (Colo. App. 2016)   Cited 2 times

    Out-of-state authority is mixed. Compare Caspe v. Aaacon Auto Transp., Inc., 658 F.2d 613, 616 (8th Cir. 1981) (noting that a clause without bold-faced type did not achieve the purpose of standing out and attracting the reader's attention), and Niewind v. Carlson, 628 N.W.2d 649, 652 (Minn. Ct. App. 2001) ("If the legislature had merely intended to require that notice be set out in a manner likely to bring it to the attention of the buyer, it would have said so."), with Cavalier Homes of Ala., Inc. v. Sec. Pac. Hous. Servs., Inc., 5 F. Supp. 2d 712, 718 (E.D. Mo. 1997) ("[T]he Court concludes that substantial compliance with the statute is sufficient and the failure to place the statutory notice in bold type does not preclude application of the statute."), and Fabulous Fur Corp. v. United Parcel Serv., 664 F. Supp. 694, 697-98 (E.D. N.Y. 1987) ("[D]efendant's only failure to comply with the ICC order consisted of the failure to use a bold-print type on its bill of lading. We find that as a matter of law this was equivalent to substantial compliance with the ICC order."), and People v. Williams, 972 N.E.2d 1265, 1269-70 (Ill. App. Ct. 2012) (bail bond form substantially complied with statute even though text was not in bold-faced type as required by statute; party was not prejudiced by

  2. Fischer v. Colorow Health Care, LLC

    421 P.3d 1176 (Colo. App. 2016)   Cited 1 times
    Concluding that, based on a statute, the absence of bold-faced type rendered an arbitration clause unenforceable

    Out-of-state authority is mixed. Compare Caspe v. Aaacon Auto Transp., Inc. , 658 F.2d 613, 616 (8th Cir.1981) (noting that a clause without bold-faced type did not achieve the purpose of standing out and attracting the reader's attention), andNiewind v.Carlson , 628 N.W.2d 649, 652 (Minn.Ct.App.2001) ("If the legislature had merely intended to require that notice be set out in a manner likely to bring it to the attention of the buyer, it would have said so."), with Cavalier Homes of Ala., Inc. v. Sec. Pac. Hous. Servs., Inc. , 5 F.Supp.2d 712, 718 (E.D.Mo.1997) ("[T]he Court concludes that substantial compliance with the statute is sufficient and the failure to place the statutory notice in bold type does not preclude application of the statute."), and Fabulous Fur Corp. v. United Parcel Serv. , 664 F.Supp. 694, 697–98 (E.D.N.Y.1987) ("[D]efendant's only failure to comply with the ICC order consisted of the failure to use a bold-print type on its bill of lading.

  3. Safety Signs, LLC v. Niles–Wiese Constr. Co.

    820 N.W.2d 854 (Minn. Ct. App. 2012)   Cited 1 times

    “[A]lthough the remedial intent of legislation may be considered, the clear language of a statute cannot be disregarded in the name of pursuing the spirit rather than the letter of the law.” Niewind v. Carlson, 628 N.W.2d 649, 651 (Minn.App.2001) (alteration in original) (quotation omitted). If the legislature had merely intended to require that notice be sent to an address where it would likely be received by the contractor, it could have said so.

  4. Kurle v. Ryland Group, Inc.

    No. A03-1089 (Minn. Ct. App. May. 5, 2004)

    This court has held even "substantial compliance" to be insufficient in considering Minn. Stat. § 514.011, the statute requiring that a prelien notice be printed in 10-point boldface type, stating that if the legislature had "merely intended to require that notice be set out in a manner likely to bring it to the attention of the buyer, it would have said so." Niewind v. Carlson, 628 N.W.2d 649, 652 (Minn. App. 2001). Instead, the legislature specifically required that the notice be in 10-point bold type.