5 Minnesota opinions name it 2 courts 2001–2016 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Minnesota courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
City of Chisago City v. Poultergreen1 sentence2015See 342 N.W.2d at 170 . | 1 | 1 |
Fraser v. Frasergreen1 sentence2013Cf. MinmStat. § 566.05(a) (providing requirements for forcible-entry-and-unlawful-detainer summons and complaint); Fraser v. Fraser, 642 N.W.2d 34, 40 (Minn.App.2002) (noting that legislature “repeal[ed] the unlawful detainer provisions of chapter 566 and enacted] new provisions to be codified at chapter 504A” and later “repealed] chapter 504A and replaced] it with what is now codified at chapter 504B regarding ‘evictions’ ”). | 1 | 1 |
Nieszner v. St. Paul School District No. 625green1 sentence2013No. 625, 643 N.W.2d 645, 649-50 (Minn.App.2002) (noting that “the substantial-compliance exception has only been applied when a party has attempted substitute service in accordance with the rules of civil procedure ” (emphasis added) (citing Thiele v. Stich, 425 N.W.2d 580, 584 (Minn.1988))). | 1 | 1 |
Times Square Shopping Center, LLP v. Tobacco City, Inc.green1 sentence2013We acknowledge that, contrary to Nieszner , in Times Square Shopping Ctr., LLP v. Tobacco City, Inc., 585 N.W.2d 791, 792 (Minn.App.1998), review denied (Minn. Jan. 21, 1999), we applied the substantial-compliance exception to section 504B.331’s predecessor statute—Minn. Stat. § 566.05(a) (Supp.1997). | 1 | 1 |
Vlahos v. R&I Construction of Bloomington, Inc.green1 sentence2013Minn.Stat. § 480A.08, subd. 3 (2012); see Vlahos v. R & I Constr. of Bloomington, Inc., 676 N.W.2d 672 , 676 n. 3 (Minn.2004) (stating that ”[u]npub-lished opinions of the court of appeals are not precedential” and "should not be cited by the district courts as binding precedent”). | 1 | 1 |
Thiele v. Stichgreen1 sentence2013No. 625, 643 N.W.2d 645, 649-50 (Minn.App.2002) (noting that “the substantial-compliance exception has only been applied when a party has attempted substitute service in accordance with the rules of civil procedure ” (emphasis added) (citing Thiele v. Stich, 425 N.W.2d 580, 584 (Minn.1988))). | 1 | 1 |
City of Minneapolis v. Wurtelegreen1 sentence2011See City of Minneapolis v. Wurtele, 291 N.W.2d 386, 391 (Minn.1980) (“[T]he law does not mandate in all cases strict and literal compliance with all procedural requirements. | 1 | 1 |
Mary M. MARES, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. John O. MARSH, Secretary of the Army, Defendant-Appelleegreen1 sentence2001See, e.g., United States v. Reed, 910 F.2d 621, 626 (9th Cir.1990) (deputy’s actions misled detainee and detainee was not provided with the correct trial-request form); Gibson v. Klevenhagen, 777 F.2d 1066, 1058 (5th Cir.1985) (detainee submitted personal letter); State v. Blackburn, 214 Wis.2d 372 , 571 N.W.2d 695 (1997) (detainee’s motion was not sent by registered mail and was proferred before de-tainer was lodged against him); Palmer v. Williams, 120 N.M. 68 , 897 P.2d 1111, 1115 (1995) (detainee’s filing of motion to dismiss did not constitute substantial compliance with IAD’s notice requ | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Richard Leslie Reedgreen1 sentence2001See, e.g., United States v. Reed, 910 F.2d 621, 626 (9th Cir.1990) (deputy’s actions misled detainee and detainee was not provided with the correct trial-request form); Gibson v. Klevenhagen, 777 F.2d 1066, 1058 (5th Cir.1985) (detainee submitted personal letter); State v. Blackburn, 214 Wis.2d 372 , 571 N.W.2d 695 (1997) (detainee’s motion was not sent by registered mail and was proferred before de-tainer was lodged against him); Palmer v. Williams, 120 N.M. 68 , 897 P.2d 1111, 1115 (1995) (detainee’s filing of motion to dismiss did not constitute substantial compliance with IAD’s notice requ | 1 | 1 |
State v. Moreaugreen2 sentences2001See, e.g., United States v. Reed, 910 F.2d 621, 626 (9th Cir.1990) (deputy’s actions misled detainee and detainee was not provided with the correct trial-request form); Gibson v. Klevenhagen, 777 F.2d 1066, 1058 (5th Cir.1985) (detainee submitted personal letter); State v. Blackburn, 214 Wis.2d 372 , 571 N.W.2d 695 (1997) (detainee’s motion was not sent by registered mail and was proferred before de-tainer was lodged against him); Palmer v. Williams, 120 N.M. 68 , 897 P.2d 1111, 1115 (1995) (detainee’s filing of motion to dismiss did not constitute substantial compliance with IAD’s notice requ 2001See, e.g., United States v. Reed, 910 F.2d 621, 626 (9th Cir.1990) (deputy’s actions misled detainee and detainee was not provided with the correct trial-request form); Gibson v. Klevenhagen, 777 F.2d 1066, 1058 (5th Cir.1985) (detainee submitted personal letter); State v. Blackburn, 214 Wis.2d 372 , 571 N.W.2d 695 (1997) (detainee’s motion was not sent by registered mail and was proferred before de-tainer was lodged against him); Palmer v. Williams, 120 N.M. 68 , 897 P.2d 1111, 1115 (1995) (detainee’s filing of motion to dismiss did not constitute substantial compliance with IAD’s notice requ | 1 | 1 |
Palmer v. Williamsgreen1 sentence2001See, e.g., United States v. Reed, 910 F.2d 621, 626 (9th Cir.1990) (deputy’s actions misled detainee and detainee was not provided with the correct trial-request form); Gibson v. Klevenhagen, 777 F.2d 1066, 1058 (5th Cir.1985) (detainee submitted personal letter); State v. Blackburn, 214 Wis.2d 372 , 571 N.W.2d 695 (1997) (detainee’s motion was not sent by registered mail and was proferred before de-tainer was lodged against him); Palmer v. Williams, 120 N.M. 68 , 897 P.2d 1111, 1115 (1995) (detainee’s filing of motion to dismiss did not constitute substantial compliance with IAD’s notice requ | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Minnesota. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Timberlake
green
1 sentence2016State v. Timberlake, 744 N.W.2d 390 , 395 n. 7 (Minn.2008) (quoting State ex. rel. | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Larson v. Hendrickson
green
1 sentence2013Koski urges that Larson v. Hendrickson, 394 N.W.2d 524 (Minn.App.1986), supports the application of the substantial-compliance exception to section 504B.331. | 1 | 2013–2013 |
State v. Blackburn
green
2 sentences2001See, e.g., United States v. Reed, 910 F.2d 621, 626 (9th Cir.1990) (deputy’s actions misled detainee and detainee was not provided with the correct trial-request form); Gibson v. Klevenhagen, 777 F.2d 1066, 1058 (5th Cir.1985) (detainee submitted personal letter); State v. Blackburn, 214 Wis.2d 372 , 571 N.W.2d 695 (1997) (detainee’s motion was not sent by registered mail and was proferred before de-tainer was lodged against him); Palmer v. Williams, 120 N.M. 68 , 897 P.2d 1111, 1115 (1995) (detainee’s filing of motion to dismiss did not constitute substantial compliance with IAD’s notice requ 2001See, e.g., United States v. Reed, 910 F.2d 621, 626 (9th Cir.1990) (deputy’s actions misled detainee and detainee was not provided with the correct trial-request form); Gibson v. Klevenhagen, 777 F.2d 1066, 1058 (5th Cir.1985) (detainee submitted personal letter); State v. Blackburn, 214 Wis.2d 372 , 571 N.W.2d 695 (1997) (detainee’s motion was not sent by registered mail and was proferred before de-tainer was lodged against him); Palmer v. Williams, 120 N.M. 68 , 897 P.2d 1111, 1115 (1995) (detainee’s filing of motion to dismiss did not constitute substantial compliance with IAD’s notice requ | 1 | 2001–2001 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.