Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
5 Minnesota opinions name it 1 courts 1897–1925 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 |
|---|---|---|
| No positive-treatment citations attached to this issue in Minnesota. | ||
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Minnesota. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Lee
green
2 sentences1925But as long as. we are concerned with evils such as that of intemperance, which has a definitely local aspect because of the community disorder and deterioration which always attend it, we shall not depart from the wholesome rule adopted in State v. Lee, 29 Minn. 445 , 13 N. W. 913 . 1925But as long as. we are concerned with evils such as that of intemperance, which has a definitely local aspect because of the community disorder and deterioration which always attend it, we shall not depart from the wholesome rule adopted in State v. Lee, 29 Minn. 445 , 13 N. W. 913 . | 1 | 1925–1925 |
State v. Nelson
green
2 sentences1921In my judgment the case is one calling for the application of the wholesome rule laid down in State v. Nelson, 91 Minn. 143 , 97 N. W. 652 . 1921In my judgment the case is one calling for the application of the wholesome rule laid down in State v. Nelson, 91 Minn. 143 , 97 N. W. 652 . | 1 | 1921–1921 |
Hass v. Billings
neutral
1 sentence1908We cannot think the legislature intended to go that length.” In Moudry v. Witzka, 89 Minn. 300, 303 , 94 N. W. 885, 886 , Lovely, J., said: “We cannot believe that it was the purpose of the statute to dispense entirely with the doctrine of res judicata, and the wholesome rule, vital to the authority of judicial action, that forbids one who has his day in court from continually opening and reviewing questions that have been determined upon their merits.” In Hass v. Billings, 42 Minn. 63, 67 , 43 N. W. 798 , the court did not purport to “lay down a general rule to determine what cases come withi | 1 | 1908–1908 |
Duncan v. Everitt
neutral
1 sentence1908In the opinion it is, however, held that, “when an issue is squarely made in a case, so that each party knows what the other will attempt to prove, and neither has a right, or is under any necessity, to depend on the other proving the fact to be as he himself claims it, — and such appears to be this case, — the mere allegation by the defeated party that there was, as to such issue, false or perjured testimony by the successful party or his witnesses will not, as we think, bring his case within the meaning of the statute.” This expression of the law was approved in Wilkins v. Sherwood, 55 Minn. | 1 | 1908–1908 |
Wilsins v. Sherwood
neutral
1 sentence1908In the opinion it is, however, held that, “when an issue is squarely made in a case, so that each party knows what the other will attempt to prove, and neither has a right, or is under any necessity, to depend on the other proving the fact to be as he himself claims it, — and such appears to be this case, — the mere allegation by the defeated party that there was, as to such issue, false or perjured testimony by the successful party or his witnesses will not, as we think, bring his case within the meaning of the statute.” This expression of the law was approved in Wilkins v. Sherwood, 55 Minn. | 1 | 1908–1908 |
Colby v. Colby
green
2 sentences1908In the opinion it is, however, held that, “when an issue is squarely made in a case, so that each party knows what the other will attempt to prove, and neither has a right, or is under any necessity, to depend on the other proving the fact to be as he himself claims it, — and such appears to be this case, — the mere allegation by the defeated party that there was, as to such issue, false or perjured testimony by the successful party or his witnesses will not, as we think, bring his case within the meaning of the statute.” This expression of the law was approved in Wilkins v. Sherwood, 55 Minn. 1908In the opinion it is, however, held that, “when an issue is squarely made in a case, so that each party knows what the other will attempt to prove, and neither has a right, or is under any necessity, to depend on the other proving the fact to be as he himself claims it, — and such appears to be this case, — the mere allegation by the defeated party that there was, as to such issue, false or perjured testimony by the successful party or his witnesses will not, as we think, bring his case within the meaning of the statute.” This expression of the law was approved in Wilkins v. Sherwood, 55 Minn. | 1 | 1908–1908 |
Geisberg v. O'Laughlin
neutral
2 sentences1908We cannot think the legislature intended to go that length.” In Moudry v. Witzka, 89 Minn. 300, 303 , 94 N. W. 885, 886 , Lovely, J., said: “We cannot believe that it was the purpose of the statute to dispense entirely with the doctrine of res judicata, and the wholesome rule, vital to the authority of judicial action, that forbids one who has his day in court from continually opening and reviewing questions that have been determined upon their merits.” In Hass v. Billings, 42 Minn. 63, 67 , 43 N. W. 798 , the court did not purport to “lay down a general rule to determine what cases come withi 1908We cannot think the legislature intended to go that length.” In Moudry v. Witzka, 89 Minn. 300, 303 , 94 N. W. 885, 886 , Lovely, J., said: “We cannot believe that it was the purpose of the statute to dispense entirely with the doctrine of res judicata, and the wholesome rule, vital to the authority of judicial action, that forbids one who has his day in court from continually opening and reviewing questions that have been determined upon their merits.” In Hass v. Billings, 42 Minn. 63, 67 , 43 N. W. 798 , the court did not purport to “lay down a general rule to determine what cases come withi | 1 | 1908–1908 |
Moudry v. Witzka
neutral
2 sentences1908We cannot think the legislature intended to go that length.” In Moudry v. Witzka, 89 Minn. 300, 303 , 94 N. W. 885, 886 , Lovely, J., said: “We cannot believe that it was the purpose of the statute to dispense entirely with the doctrine of res judicata, and the wholesome rule, vital to the authority of judicial action, that forbids one who has his day in court from continually opening and reviewing questions that have been determined upon their merits.” In Hass v. Billings, 42 Minn. 63, 67 , 43 N. W. 798 , the court did not purport to “lay down a general rule to determine what cases come withi 1908We cannot think the legislature intended to go that length.” In Moudry v. Witzka, 89 Minn. 300, 303 , 94 N. W. 885, 886 , Lovely, J., said: “We cannot believe that it was the purpose of the statute to dispense entirely with the doctrine of res judicata, and the wholesome rule, vital to the authority of judicial action, that forbids one who has his day in court from continually opening and reviewing questions that have been determined upon their merits.” In Hass v. Billings, 42 Minn. 63, 67 , 43 N. W. 798 , the court did not purport to “lay down a general rule to determine what cases come withi | 1 | 1908–1908 |
Sheehan v. Flynn
green
2 sentences1907Whether the course adopted by appellant was reasonable under the doctrine of Sheehan v. Flynn, 59 Minn. 436 , 61 N. W. 462 , 26 L. 1907Whether the course adopted by appellant was reasonable under the doctrine of Sheehan v. Flynn, 59 Minn. 436 , 61 N. W. 462 , 26 L. | 1 | 1907–1907 |
Baker v. Hawkins
green
1 sentence1897Baker v. Hawkins, 29 Wis. 576 ; Murray v. McGarigle, 69 Wis. 483 , 34 N. W. 522 . | 1 | 1897–1897 |
Murray v. McGarigle
green
2 sentences1897Baker v. Hawkins, 29 Wis. 576 ; Murray v. McGarigle, 69 Wis. 483 , 34 N. W. 522 . 1897Baker v. Hawkins, 29 Wis. 576 ; Murray v. McGarigle, 69 Wis. 483 , 34 N. W. 522 . | 1 | 1897–1897 |
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.