Cases from cite.case.law:

E. A. J. A. A. v. K. GARDNER,, 929 F.3d 922 (7th Cir. 2019)

. . . See 750 ILCS 5/604.10(d). . . .

IN RE M. CREMO,, 557 B.R. 343 (Bankr. M.D. Pa. 2016)

. . . the $16.42 trustee bond payment, the Trustee proposes to distribute the balance of the funds ($26,-604.10 . . .

A. KING S. f k a S. v. ESTATE OF L. GILBREATH, E. LLC, L. LLC, LLC, M. LLC a k a a k a TOP I- X, a, 215 F. Supp. 3d 1149 (D.N.M. 2016)

. . . See 3 Williams & Meyers § 604.10 (“Absent a contrary provision in the lease, the haben-dum clause is . . .

In SYNGENTA AG MIR CORN LITIGATION, 131 F. Supp. 3d 1177 (D. Kan. 2015)

. . . . § 604.10(b)). . . .

GEORGE, v. UPONOR CORPORATION,, 988 F. Supp. 2d 1056 (D. Minn. 2013)

. . . . § 604.10(e) makes an exception for fraud and intentional misrepresentation claims, meaning the economic . . .

MARVIN LUMBER AND CEDAR COMPANY, v. SAPA EXTRUSIONS, INC. v., 964 F. Supp. 2d 993 (D. Minn. 2013)

. . . . § 604.10; Werwinski v. Ford Motor Co., 286 F.3d 661, 671 (3d Cir. 2002). . . . See Minn.Stat. § 604.10 (“This section shall not be interpreted to bar tort causes of action based upon . . .

CANNON TECHNOLOGIES, INC. v. SENSUS METERING SYSTEMS, INC. v., 734 F. Supp. 2d 753 (D. Minn. 2010)

. . . . § 604.10(e). . . .

AMERICAN BUS ASSOCIATION, INC. v. M. ROGOFF, U. S. v. M. U. S., 717 F. Supp. 2d 73 (D.D.C. 2010)

. . . . § 604.10. . . . .

In HARRIS- PENA, v. CIT, 446 B.R. 178 (Bankr. E.D. Pa. 2009)

. . . the following amounts as Settlement Charges: Underwriting Fee to CIT $ 496.00 Loan Discount to CIT $ 604.10 . . .

UNITED MOTORCOACH ASSOCIATION, INC. v. J. WELBES,, 614 F. Supp. 2d 1 (D.D.C. 2009)

. . . . § 604.10. . . .

HOLDEN FARMS, INC. a C. d b a A AJ a LLP, a v. HOG SLAT, INC. a BCM a L, 347 F.3d 1055 (8th Cir. 2003)

. . . . § 604.10(a), which provides: Economic loss that arises from a sale of goods that is due to damage to . . . with Den-Tal-Ez and the Regents dissent, and based upon our independent conclusion that Minn.Stat. § 604.10 . . . manufactured item will not be held to be a “merchant in goods of the kind” for purposes of Minn.Stat. § 604.10 . . . All the transactions in this matter occurred prior to August 1, 2000, and accordingly Minn.Stat. § 604.10 . . .

DAHLMAN FARMS, INC. v. FMC CORPORATION,, 240 F. Supp. 2d 1012 (D. Minn. 2002)

. . . . § 604.10 (2000). . . .

NORTHWESTERN PUBLIC SERVICE, a f k a v. UNION CARBIDE CORPORATION,, 115 F. Supp. 2d 1164 (D.S.D. 2000)

. . . . § 604.10(e) (2000). . . . Laws ch. 358 (to be codified at Minn.Stat. § 604.10). See Marvin Lumber & Cedar Co. v. . . .

MARVIN LUMBER AND CEDAR COMPANY v. PPG INDUSTRIES, INC. v., 223 F.3d 873 (8th Cir. 2000)

. . . . § 604.10. . . . The dissent noted: When it enacted § 604.10(a) in 1991, had it so desired, the Minnesota legislature . . . The intended purpose of § 604.10 was to overcome Hapka’s broad language, based on § 336.2-104(1), so . . . In contrast, the majority opinion today declares that limiting § 604.10 to dealers “would create an unwarranted . . . Minnesota Statute § 604.10(e), which explicitly states that fraud claims are not barred under the economic . . . . § 604.10. . . . Stat. § 604.10(e). . . . misrepresentation was made intentionally or recklessly.” 2000 Minn.Laws ch. 358 (to be codified at Minn.Stat. § 604.10 . . .

MARVIN LUMBER AND CEDAR COMPANY v. PPG INDUSTRIES, INC., 34 F. Supp. 2d 738 (D. Minn. 1999)

. . . Section 604.10 and the 1998 Special Session Amendment In 1990, the Minnesota Supreme Court overruled . . . Section 604.10, as originally enacted, provided as follows: (a) Economic loss that arises from a sale . . . In retrospect, Marvins’ efforts to secure a change in Section 604.10 were without legal significance . . . Minn.Stat. § 604.10(d). . . . Minn.Stat. § 604.10 (1998 Amend. § 4). . . .

MINNESOTA FOREST PRODUCTS, INC. a v. LIGNA MACHINERY, INC. a H. E. a k a De a, 17 F. Supp. 2d 892 (D. Minn. 1998)

. . . Id. § 604.10. . . . Id. § 604.10(a) & (c) (emphasis added). . . . . § 604.10(a). In AKA Distributing Co. v. . . . The AKA opinion made no other reference to Minn.Stat. § 604.10. . . . Smith, 491 N.W.2d at 15; Parker-Klein, 354 N.W.2d at 821; Minn.Stat. § 604.10. . . . .

AKA DISTRIBUTING COMPANY, v. WHIRLPOOL CORPORATION,, 137 F.3d 1083 (8th Cir. 1998)

. . . . § 604.10. . . .

REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA, v. CHIEF INDUSTRIES, INC. a a, 106 F.3d 1409 (8th Cir. 1997)

. . . Enacted in 1991, section 604.10 codified Minnesota’s preexisting rule that in commercial transactions . . . The Minnesota Supreme Court has considered no economic loss cases since section 604.10 was enacted. . . . We therefore agree with the district court that it is proper to construe section 604.10 in harmony with . . . Neither the statute nor the ease law indicates that section 604.10 should be limited to dealers. . . . Indeed, to so narrow section 604.10 would create an unwarranted inconsistency with section 336.2-104( . . . . § 604.10) (emphasis mine). . . . Section 604.10(a) governs this claim. . . . The intended purpose of § 604.10 was to overcome Hapka’s broad language, based on § 336.2-104(1), so . . . Evident from the legislative history and consistent with Justice Simonett’s interpretation, § 604.10( . . . § 604.10 was found not to be retroactive. . . .

AKA DISTRIBUTING COMPANY, v. WHIRLPOOL CORPORATION,, 948 F. Supp. 903 (D. Minn. 1996)

. . . Hapka, 458 N.W.2d at 688; see also, Minn.Stat. 604.10 (providing that “[e]eonomie loss that arises from . . .

UPSHER- SMITH LABORATORIES, INC. v. MYLAN LABORATORIES, INC., 944 F. Supp. 1411 (D. Minn. 1996)

. . . This conclusion is reinforced by the language of Minnesota Statutes Section 604.10, which provides as . . .

BOARD OF REGENTS OF UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA, v. CHIEF INDUSTRIES, INC. a a, 907 F. Supp. 1298 (D. Minn. 1995)

. . . . § 604.10. . . . Defendant moves for summary judgment based on Minn.Stat. § 604.10(a). . . . In 1991, the Minnesota legislature passed Minnesota Statute Section 604.10. . . . Minn.Stat. § 604.10 (1994). . . . Minnesota law, the University’s tort claims for damage to other property are barred by Minn.Stat. § 604.10 . . .

NELSON DISTRIBUTING, INC. d b a v. STEWART- WARNER INDUSTRIAL BALANCERS, A DIVISION OF STEWART- WARNER CORPORATION,, 808 F. Supp. 684 (D. Minn. 1992)

. . . . § 604.10 revives plaintiff’s claim and overrules Hapka. . . . Minn.Stat. § 604.10 provides: (a) Economic loss that arises from a sale of goods that is due to damage . . . Section 604.10 revives only that exception (announced in Superwood and overruled in Hapka) that allowed . . . not claiming economic loss “due to damage to tangible property other than the goods sold,” section 604.10 . . . Because the court finds section 604.10 inapplicable, it need not consider whether section 604.10 applies . . .

LOCAL DIVISION AMALGAMATED TRANSIT UNION, AFL- CIO, v. LaCROSSE MUNICIPAL TRANSIT UTILITY, 445 F. Supp. 798 (W.D. Wis. 1978)

. . . . § 604.10 et seq. regarding charter bus agreements; and 49 C.F.R. § 603.1 et seq. regarding collection . . .

M. v., 25 T.C. 940 (T.C. 1956)

. . . However, petitioners do concede that in 1943 Esther failed to report and is taxable on $604.10 in bond . . .

, 118 Ct. Cl. 625 (Ct. Cl. 1951)

. . . Wilmot_ 604.10 Albert T. Yarrington- 814. 51 John H. Adams_ 330.53 Sam Bernsen_ 117.18 Ellsworth R. . . .