stare decisis doctrine in Minnesota

30 Minnesota opinions name it 2 courts 1896–2025 1 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.

Followed or applied (16)

Case	Followed	Cited
State v. Martingreen minn · 2009 · cited in 3 Minnesota opinions naming this issue, 2012–2017 2 sentences 2017This conclusion is consistent with our doctrine of stare decisis, our obligation to promote stability in the law and the integrity of the judicial process, and our reluctance to overrule our precedent absent a “compelling reason,” State v. Martin, 773 N.W.2d 89, 98 (Minn. 2009) (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted), as well as our statutory authority, Minn. Stat. § 204B.44. 2012State v. Martin, 773 N.W.2d 89, 98 (Minn.2009).	3	3
Doe v. Lutheran High School of Greater Minneapolisgreen minnctapp · 2005 · cited in 3 Minnesota opinions naming this issue, 2013–2016 2 sentences 2016The doctrine of stare decisis “directs that we adhere to former decisions in order that there might be stability in the law.” Doe v. Lutheran High Sch. of Greater Minneapolis, 702 N.W.2d 322, 330 (Minn.App.2005). (quotation omitted). 2014See Doe v. Lutheran High Sch. of Greater Minneapolis, 702 N.W.2d 322, 330 (Minn. App. 2005), review denied (Minn. Oct. 26, 2005) (“[A]ppellate courts are bound by the doctrine of stare decisis, which directs that we adhere to former decisions in order that there might be stability in the law.” (quotation omitted)). 16 the evidence.” State v. Lindsey, 755 N.W.2d 752, 757 (Minn. App. 2008), review denied (Minn. Oct. 29, 2008) (quotation omitted).	3	3
Johnson v. Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroadgreen minn · 1954 · cited in 2 Minnesota opinions naming this issue, 2015–2025 2 sentences 2025While “[t]he doctrine of stare decisis . . . directs that we adhere to former decisions in order that there might be stability in the law[,] . . . [s]tare decisis is not an inflexible rule of law but rather a policy of the law.” Ariola v. City of Stillwater, 889 N.W.2d 340, 356 (Minn. App. 2017) (quoting Johnson v. Chicago, Burlington & Quincy R.R., 66 N.W.2d 763, 770 (Minn. 1954)) (other citation omitted). 2015Co., 243 Minn. 58, 69-70 , 66 N.W.2d 763, 771 (1954) (stating that the doctrine of stare decisis is a “guiding policy, not inflexible rule” and “is no shield for plain error”).	2	2
Schuette v. City of Hutchinsongreen minn · 2014 · cited in 2 Minnesota opinions naming this issue, 2016–2018 2 sentences 2018"We are 'extremely reluctant' to overrule our precedent absent a compelling reason to do so." Harris , 895 N.W.2d at 598 (quoting State v. Lee , 706 N.W.2d 491 , 494 (Minn. 2005) ); see also Schuette v. City of Hutchinson , 843 N.W.2d 233 , 238 (Minn. 2014) ("The doctrine of stare decisis ... promote[s] the stability of the law and the integrity of the judicial process."). 2016See Schuette v. City of Hutchinson, 843 N.W.2d 233, 238-39 (Minn.2014) (“[I]n order to promote the stability of the law and the integrity of the judicial process.... [w]e are extremely reluctant to overrule-our precedent absent a compelling reason.”) (citations and quotation marks omitted).	2	2
Oanes v. Allstate Insurance Co.green minn · 2000 · cited in 2 Minnesota opinions naming this issue, 2005–2013 2 sentences 2013Co., 617 N.W.2d 401, 406 (Minn.2000)), review denied (Minn. Oct. 26, 2005). 2005Co., 617 N.W.2d 401, 406 (Minn.2000).	2	2
Fleeger v. Wyethgreen minn · 2009 · cited in 1 Minnesota opinions naming this issue, 2025–2025 2 sentences 2025But just as the Minnesota Supreme Court regards its own decisions, “[w]e will only overrule our precedent if provided with a compelling reason to do so[,]” Ariola, 889 N.W.2d at 356 (citing Fleeger v. Wyeth, 771 N.W.2d 524, 529 (Minn. 2009)), and “[t]he reasons for departing from former decisions must greatly outweigh reasons for adhering to them[,]” id. (quoting Johnson, 66 N.W.2d at 770 ). 16 Because neither Meger 16 nor Her 17 address jurisdictional challenges, we acknowledge that there is tension between the conclusion in Franson that “the supreme court’s remand instructions in Meger and H 2025But just as the Minnesota Supreme Court regards its own decisions, “[w]e will only overrule our precedent if provided with a compelling reason to do so[,]” Ariola, 889 N.W.2d at 356 (citing Fleeger v. Wyeth, 771 N.W.2d 524, 529 (Minn. 2009)), and “[t]he reasons for departing from former decisions must greatly outweigh reasons for adhering to them[,]” id. (quoting Johnson, 66 N.W.2d at 770 ). 16 Because neither Meger 16 nor Her 17 address jurisdictional challenges, we acknowledge that there is tension between the conclusion in Franson that “the supreme court’s remand instructions in Meger and H	1	1
James Ariola, as next of kin of, and trustee for, the Estate of Jack Ariola Erenberg, his son, and the Class of Beneficiaries, Pursuant to Minn. Stat. 573.02 v. The City of Stillwater, Minnesotagreen minnctapp · 2017 · cited in 1 Minnesota opinions naming this issue, 2025–2025 2 sentences 2025But just as the Minnesota Supreme Court regards its own decisions, “[w]e will only overrule our precedent if provided with a compelling reason to do so[,]” Ariola, 889 N.W.2d at 356 (citing Fleeger v. Wyeth, 771 N.W.2d 524, 529 (Minn. 2009)), and “[t]he reasons for departing from former decisions must greatly outweigh reasons for adhering to them[,]” id. (quoting Johnson, 66 N.W.2d at 770 ). 16 Because neither Meger 16 nor Her 17 address jurisdictional challenges, we acknowledge that there is tension between the conclusion in Franson that “the supreme court’s remand instructions in Meger and H 2025While “[t]he doctrine of stare decisis . . . directs that we adhere to former decisions in order that there might be stability in the law[,] . . . [s]tare decisis is not an inflexible rule of law but rather a policy of the law.” Ariola v. City of Stillwater, 889 N.W.2d 340, 356 (Minn. App. 2017) (quoting Johnson v. Chicago, Burlington & Quincy R.R., 66 N.W.2d 763, 770 (Minn. 1954)) (other citation omitted).	1	1
Payne v. Tennesseegreen scotus · 1991 · cited in 1 Minnesota opinions naming this issue, 2016–2016 2 sentences 2016Stare decisis is often said to promote “the evenhanded, predictable, and consistent development of legal principles,” to foster “reliance on judicial decisions,” and to contribute “to the actual and perceived integrity of the judicial process.” Payne v. Tennessee, 501 U.S. 808, 827 , 111 S. Ct. 2597, 2609 (1991). 2016Stare decisis is often said to promote “the evenhanded, predictable, and consistent development of legal principles,” to foster “reliance on judicial decisions,” and to contribute “to the actual and perceived integrity of the judicial process.” Payne v. Tennessee, 501 U.S. 808, 827 , 111 S. Ct. 2597, 2609 (1991).	1	1
Roman Nose v. Stategreen minn · 2014 · cited in 1 Minnesota opinions naming this issue, 2015–2015 1 sentence 2015On whether Miller v. Alabama, __ U.S. __, 132 S. Ct. 2455 (2012), should be applied retroactively, I concur based on the doctrine of stare decisis, as I did in Roman Nose v. State, 845 N.W.2d 193, 204 (Minn. 2014) (Lillehaug, J., concurring).	1	1
Caldas v. Affordable Granite & Stone, Inc.green minn · 2012 · cited in 1 Minnesota opinions naming this issue, 2014–2014 1 sentence 2014But the doctrine of stare decisis requires that we not overturn our previous construction, now “part of the statute as though written therein,” Caldas v. Affordable Granite & Stone, Inc., 820 N.W.2d 826, 836 (Minn.2012), without a compelling reason to do so.	1	1
State v. Lindseygreen minnctapp · 2008 · cited in 1 Minnesota opinions naming this issue, 2014–2014 1 sentence 2014See Doe v. Lutheran High Sch. of Greater Minneapolis, 702 N.W.2d 322, 330 (Minn. App. 2005), review denied (Minn. Oct. 26, 2005) (“[A]ppellate courts are bound by the doctrine of stare decisis, which directs that we adhere to former decisions in order that there might be stability in the law.” (quotation omitted)). 16 the evidence.” State v. Lindsey, 755 N.W.2d 752, 757 (Minn. App. 2008), review denied (Minn. Oct. 29, 2008) (quotation omitted).	1	1
Murphy Motor Freight Lines, Inc. v. Witte Transportation Co.green · 1961 · cited in 1 Minnesota opinions naming this issue, 2006–2006 2 sentences 2006Co., 260 Minn. 440, 453 , 110 N.W.2d 296, 305 (1961) (citing 2 Kenneth Culp Davis, Administrative Law Treatise § 17.07 (1st ed.1958)). 2006Co., 260 Minn. 440, 453 , 110 N.W.2d 296, 305 (1961) (citing 2 Kenneth Culp Davis, Administrative Law Treatise § 17.07 (1st ed.1958)).	1	1
Toetschinger v. Ihnotgreen minn · 1977 · cited in 1 Minnesota opinions naming this issue, 1999–1999 2 sentences 1999But the doctrine of stare decisis “is not an inflexible rule of law but rather a policy of the law.” Toetschinger v. Ihnot, 312 Minn. 59, 83 , 250 N.W.2d 204, 217 (1977) (Yetka, J., dissenting) (citing Johnson v. Chicago, B. & Q. 1999But the doctrine of stare decisis “is not an inflexible rule of law but rather a policy of the law.” Toetschinger v. Ihnot, 312 Minn. 59, 83 , 250 N.W.2d 204, 217 (1977) (Yetka, J., dissenting) (citing Johnson v. Chicago, B. & Q.	1	1
DeCosse v. Armstrong Cork Co.green minn · 1982 · cited in 1 Minnesota opinions naming this issue, 1999–1999 1 sentence 1999See DeCosse v. Armstrong Cork Co., 319 N.W.2d 45, 52 (Minn.1982). [2] The dissent acknowledges that this court's rulings in Regie and Gilliard cannot be distinguished, but argues that despite the doctrine of stare decisis, in the interests of justice they should be overruled.	1	1
Bielski v. Schulzegreen wis · 1962 · cited in 1 Minnesota opinions naming this issue, 1973–1973 2 sentences 1973In reaching this result, we recognize that the common law is not a thing of chiseled marble to be left unchanged for centuries 112 and are mindful of the following statements made by the Wisconsin Supreme Court in Bielski v. Schulze, 16 Wis. 2d 1, 11 , 114 N. W. 2d 105, 110 (1961): “ * * Inherent in' the common law is a dynamic principle which allows it to grow and to tailor itself to meet changing needs within the doctrine of stare decisis, which, if correctly understood, was not static and did not forever prevent the courts from reversing themselves or from applying principles of common la 1973In reaching this result, we recognize that the common law is not a thing of chiseled marble to be left unchanged for centuries 112 and are mindful of the following statements made by the Wisconsin Supreme Court in Bielski v. Schulze, 16 Wis. 2d 1, 11 , 114 N. W. 2d 105, 110 (1961): “ * * Inherent in' the common law is a dynamic principle which allows it to grow and to tailor itself to meet changing needs within the doctrine of stare decisis, which, if correctly understood, was not static and did not forever prevent the courts from reversing themselves or from applying principles of common la	1	1
Commissioner v. Sunnengreen scotus · 1948 · cited in 1 Minnesota opinions naming this issue, 1971–1971	1	1

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

Case	Negative	Cited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Minnesota. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (23)

Case	Cited	Years
Miller v. Alabama green scotus · 2012 2 sentences 2015On whether Miller v. Alabama, __ U.S. __, 132 S. Ct. 2455 (2012), should be applied retroactively, I concur based on the doctrine of stare decisis, as I did in Roman Nose v. State, 845 N.W.2d 193, 204 (Minn. 2014) (Lillehaug, J., concurring). 2014One can only hope that the United States Supreme Court will take its earliest opportunity to clarify whether Miller v. Alabama, — U.S. -, 132 S.Ct. 2455 , 183 L.Ed.2d 407 (2012), applies retroactively.	2	2014–2015
State v. Franson green minnctapp · 2018 1 sentence 2025But just as the Minnesota Supreme Court regards its own decisions, “[w]e will only overrule our precedent if provided with a compelling reason to do so[,]” Ariola, 889 N.W.2d at 356 (citing Fleeger v. Wyeth, 771 N.W.2d 524, 529 (Minn. 2009)), and “[t]he reasons for departing from former decisions must greatly outweigh reasons for adhering to them[,]” id. (quoting Johnson, 66 N.W.2d at 770 ). 16 Because neither Meger 16 nor Her 17 address jurisdictional challenges, we acknowledge that there is tension between the conclusion in Franson that “the supreme court’s remand instructions in Meger and H	1	2025–2025
State v. Harris green minn · 2017 1 sentence 2018"We are 'extremely reluctant' to overrule our precedent absent a compelling reason to do so." Harris , 895 N.W.2d at 598 (quoting State v. Lee , 706 N.W.2d 491 , 494 (Minn. 2005) ); see also Schuette v. City of Hutchinson , 843 N.W.2d 233 , 238 (Minn. 2014) ("The doctrine of stare decisis ... promote[s] the stability of the law and the integrity of the judicial process.").	1	2018–2018
State v. Lee green minn · 2005 1 sentence 2018"We are 'extremely reluctant' to overrule our precedent absent a compelling reason to do so." Harris , 895 N.W.2d at 598 (quoting State v. Lee , 706 N.W.2d 491 , 494 (Minn. 2005) ); see also Schuette v. City of Hutchinson , 843 N.W.2d 233 , 238 (Minn. 2014) ("The doctrine of stare decisis ... promote[s] the stability of the law and the integrity of the judicial process.").	1	2018–2018
Laura L. Walsh v. U.S. Bank, N.A. green minn · 2014 1 sentence 2017According to the dissent, the word “sentencing” should instead be broadly defined as ”[t]he judicial determination of the penalty for a crime.” Infra at P-3, The dissent’s argument is unavailing because it ignores the-doctrine of stare decisis, which “directs us to adhere ,to our former decisions in order to promote the stability of the law and the integrity of the judicial process.” Walsh, 851 N.W.2d at 604 .	1	2017–2017
Montejo v. Louisiana green scotus · 2009 2 sentences 2016The Court stated that the stare decisis factors of the antiquity of the precedent and reliance interest on the prior decision weighed in favor of overruling the two-decade- old precedent because “eliminating it would not upset expectations.” Id. at 792–93, 129 S. Ct. at 2088–89. 2016The Court stated that the stare decisis factors of the antiquity of the precedent and reliance interest on the prior decision weighed in favor of overruling the two-decade- old precedent because “eliminating it would not upset expectations.” Id. at 792–93, 129 S. Ct. at 2088–89.	1	2016–2016
State v. Valentine green minnctapp · 2010 1 sentence 2014This court has observed that the probative value of relationship evidence involving a family or household member is high because “evidence showing how a defendant treats his family or household members, such as his former spouses or other girlfriends, sheds light on how the defendant interacts with those close to him, which in turn suggests how the defendant may interact with the victim.” Valentine, 787 N.W.2d at 637 .	1	2014–2014
Chambers v. State red minn · 2013 1 sentence 2014On the remaining issues, I concur because the controlling authority is Chambers v. State, 831 N.W.2d 311 (Minn.2013), which we are bound to follow under the doctrine of stare decisis.	1	2014–2014
Care Institute, Inc.-Maplewood v. County of Ramsey green minn · 1998 1 sentence 2007Id. at 737 .	1	2007–2007
State v. Victorsen green minnctapp · 2001 1 sentence 2005State v. Victorsen, 627 N.W.2d 655 , 662 n. 2 (Minn.App.2001). *331 Here, when the decision Doe is challenging was issued by this court in 2004 and the supreme court denied review, we choose to apply the doctrine of stare decisis.	1	2005–2005
Toolson v. New York Yankees, Inc. green scotus · 1953 2 sentences 1999Reference to Mr. Justice Harry Blackmun’s quote in Flood v. Kuhn, 407 U.S. 258 , 92 S.Ct. 2099 , 32 L.Ed.2d 728 (1972), from a dissent of Mr. Justice Felix Frankfurter seems particularly appropriate: The Court decided as it did in the Toolson [v. New York Yankees Inc., 346 U.S. 356 , 74 S.Ct. 78 , 98 L.Ed. 64 (1953)] case as an application of the doctrine of stare decisis. 1999Reference to Mr. Justice Harry Blackmun’s quote in Flood v. Kuhn, 407 U.S. 258 , 92 S.Ct. 2099 , 32 L.Ed.2d 728 (1972), from a dissent of Mr. Justice Felix Frankfurter seems particularly appropriate: The Court decided as it did in the Toolson [v. New York Yankees Inc., 346 U.S. 356 , 74 S.Ct. 78 , 98 L.Ed. 64 (1953)] case as an application of the doctrine of stare decisis.	1	1999–1999
Flood v. Kuhn green scotus · 1972 2 sentences 1999Reference to Mr. Justice Harry Blackmun’s quote in Flood v. Kuhn, 407 U.S. 258 , 92 S.Ct. 2099 , 32 L.Ed.2d 728 (1972), from a dissent of Mr. Justice Felix Frankfurter seems particularly appropriate: The Court decided as it did in the Toolson [v. New York Yankees Inc., 346 U.S. 356 , 74 S.Ct. 78 , 98 L.Ed. 64 (1953)] case as an application of the doctrine of stare decisis. 1999Reference to Mr. Justice Harry Blackmun’s quote in Flood v. Kuhn, 407 U.S. 258 , 92 S.Ct. 2099 , 32 L.Ed.2d 728 (1972), from a dissent of Mr. Justice Felix Frankfurter seems particularly appropriate: The Court decided as it did in the Toolson [v. New York Yankees Inc., 346 U.S. 356 , 74 S.Ct. 78 , 98 L.Ed. 64 (1953)] case as an application of the doctrine of stare decisis.	1	1999–1999
North Star Research Institute v. County of Hennepin green minn · 1975 1 sentence 1998We set out the law for determining whether a taxpayer is entitled to exemption as an institution of purely public charity in North Star Research Inst. v. County of Hennepin, 236 N.W.2d 754 .	1	1998–1998
State v. Joon Kyu Kim green minn · 1987 2 sentences 1989Part III of the opinion is premised on the majority holding in State v. Joon Kyu Kim, 398 N.W.2d 544 (Minn.1987). 1989Part III of the opinion is premised on the majority holding in State v. Joon Kyu Kim, 398 N.W.2d 544 (Minn.1987).	1	1989–1989
State v. Brouillette green minn · 1979 2 sentences 1980While I agree with the result of the majority, I must point out that the court's failure to properly apply the holding of State v. Brouillette, 286 N.W.2d 702 (Minn. 1979), in its general discussion regarding the admissibility of the prior conviction overtly conflicts with the doctrine of stare decisis, resulting in a lack of consistency and certainty in our case law. 1980While I agree with the result of the majority, I must point out that the court’s failure to properly apply the holding of State v. Brouillette, 286 N.W.2d 702 (Minn.1979), in its general discussion regarding the admissibility of the prior conviction overtly conflicts with the doctrine of stare decisis, resulting in a lack of consistency and certainty in our case law.	1	1980–1980
People ex rel. Watchtower Bible & Tract Society, Inc. v. Haring green nyappdiv · 1955	1	1971–1971
Schigley v. City of Waseca green minn · 1908	1	1949–1949
Torgerson v. Crookston Lumber Co. neutral minn · 1913	1	1924–1924
Gullikson v. McDonald green minn · 1895	1	1922–1922
Snider v. City of St. Paul green minn · 1892	1	1915–1915
Schuek v. Hagar green minn · 1877	1	1914–1914
Schleuder v. Corey neutral minn · 1883	1	1896–1896
Maxwell v. Schwartz neutral minn · 1893	1	1896–1896

Statutes the citing opinions construe

MN § Minn. Stat. § 299C.155 (3) MN § Minn. Stat. § 609.185 (3) MN § Minn. Stat. § 609.3461 (3) MN § Minn. Stat. § 645.16 (3)

Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.

Where else courts name it

CA 237 (1860–2026) IL 175 (1914–2026) MI 171 (1913–2025) TX 105 (1927–2025) NY 98 (1887–2026) PA 91 (1912–2026) UT 66 (1895–2025) AL 66 (1866–2026) WA 65 (1895–2025) FL 64 (1938–2026) WV 63 (1895–2026) GA 63 (1890–2024) MD 57 (1966–2025) NC 55 (1893–2024) OH 54 (1918–2026) NV 51 (1876–2024) WI 47 (1929–2024) KS 44 (1948–2025) VA 42 (1949–2025) MO 40 (1880–2025) TN 37 (1935–2025) OR 35 (1888–2024) CT 35 (1980–2025) KY 34 (1913–2025) IA 33 (1868–2025) WY 32 (1976–2025) MS 32 (1952–2025) HI 32 (1913–2025) MN 30 (1896–2025) IN 30 (1921–2024) AR 27 (1893–2021) CO 25 (1912–2026) AZ 24 (1916–2023) OK 20 (1912–2023) DE 19 (1961–2025) MT 19 (1872–2025) NJ 17 (1898–2022) NH 16 (2003–2025) ID 14 (1904–2024) LA 14 (1892–2014) AK 13 (1980–2023) NM 13 (1965–2025) VT 12 (1985–2026) ME 12 (1938–2025) MA 9 (1919–2016) NE 8 (1895–2026) RI 8 (2002–2018) SD 5 (1925–2025) SC 5 (1894–2022) DC 4 (1991–2013) VI 2 (2013–2024)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check