16 Minnesota opinions name it 2 courts 1986–2024 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.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Container Corp. of America v. Franchise Tax Boardgreen2 sentences1993The Court was careful to note, however, that [t]he Constitution does not ‘invalidate an apportionment formula whenever it may result in taxation of some income that did not have its source in the taxing State * * *’ Id. at 169-70 , 103 S.Ct. at 2942 , citing Moorman Mfg. 1993The Court was careful to note, however, that [t]he Constitution does not ‘invalidate an apportionment formula whenever it may result in taxation of some income that did not have its source in the taxing State * * *’ Id. at 169-70 , 103 S.Ct. at 2942 , citing Moorman Mfg. | 1 | 2 |
State v. Leegreen1 sentence2014See, e.g., State v. Lee, 494 N.W.2d 475, 482 (Minn. 1992) (affirming a durational departure based, in part, on the factor of violation of a position of trust where the defendant community leader sexually assaulted two women); State v. Campbell, 367 N.W.2d 454, 461 (Minn. 1985) (affirming a durational departure based, in part, on the factor of violation of a position of trust where the codefendants knew the victim as neighbors and convinced the victim to open her door to them); see also State v. Rourke, 681 N.W.2d 35 , 40–41 (Minn. App. 2004) (stating that “we have found no cases that limit the | 1 | 1 |
State v. Rourkegreen1 sentence2014See, e.g., State v. Lee, 494 N.W.2d 475, 482 (Minn. 1992) (affirming a durational departure based, in part, on the factor of violation of a position of trust where the defendant community leader sexually assaulted two women); State v. Campbell, 367 N.W.2d 454, 461 (Minn. 1985) (affirming a durational departure based, in part, on the factor of violation of a position of trust where the codefendants knew the victim as neighbors and convinced the victim to open her door to them); see also State v. Rourke, 681 N.W.2d 35 , 40–41 (Minn. App. 2004) (stating that “we have found no cases that limit the | 1 | 1 |
Dent-Air, Inc. v. Beech Mountain Air Service, Inc.green1 sentence2014Id.; Dent-Air v. Beech Mountain Air Service, 332 N.W.2d 904, 908 (1983). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Rourkegreen1 sentence2014See, e.g., State v. Lee, 494 N.W.2d 475, 482 (Minn. 1992) (affirming a durational departure based, in part, on the factor of violation of a position of trust where the defendant community leader sexually assaulted two women); State v. Campbell, 367 N.W.2d 454, 461 (Minn. 1985) (affirming a durational departure based, in part, on the factor of violation of a position of trust where the codefendants knew the victim as neighbors and convinced the victim to open her door to them); see also State v. Rourke, 681 N.W.2d 35 , 40–41 (Minn. App. 2004) (stating that “we have found no cases that limit the | 1 | 1 |
State v. Campbellgreen1 sentence2014See, e.g., State v. Lee, 494 N.W.2d 475, 482 (Minn. 1992) (affirming a durational departure based, in part, on the factor of violation of a position of trust where the defendant community leader sexually assaulted two women); State v. Campbell, 367 N.W.2d 454, 461 (Minn. 1985) (affirming a durational departure based, in part, on the factor of violation of a position of trust where the codefendants knew the victim as neighbors and convinced the victim to open her door to them); see also State v. Rourke, 681 N.W.2d 35 , 40–41 (Minn. App. 2004) (stating that “we have found no cases that limit the | 1 | 1 |
Peterson v. Fultongreen2 sentences2008In the context of general tort liability, such as negligence actions, we long ago defined a proximate cause of a given result as “a material element or a substantial factor in the happening of that result.” Peterson v. Fulton, 192 Minn. 360, 364 , 256 N.W. 901, 903 (1934); see George v. Estate of Baker, 724 N.W.2d 1, 10 (Minn.2006) (“Minnesota applies the substantial factor test for causation. 2008In the context of general tort liability, such as negligence actions, we long ago defined a proximate cause of a given result as “a material element or a substantial factor in the happening of that result.” Peterson v. Fulton, 192 Minn. 360, 364 , 256 N.W. 901, 903 (1934); see George v. Estate of Baker, 724 N.W.2d 1, 10 (Minn.2006) (“Minnesota applies the substantial factor test for causation. | 1 | 1 |
George v. Estate of Bakergreen2 sentences2008In the context of general tort liability, such as negligence actions, we long ago defined a proximate cause of a given result as "a material element or a substantial factor in the happening of that result." Peterson v. Fulton, 192 Minn. 360, 364 , 256 N.W. 901, 903 (1934); see George v. Estate of Baker, 724 N.W.2d 1, 10 (Minn.2006) ("Minnesota applies the substantial factor test for causation. 2008In the context of general tort liability, such as negligence actions, we long ago defined a proximate cause of a given result as “a material element or a substantial factor in the happening of that result.” Peterson v. Fulton, 192 Minn. 360, 364 , 256 N.W. 901, 903 (1934); see George v. Estate of Baker, 724 N.W.2d 1, 10 (Minn.2006) (“Minnesota applies the substantial factor test for causation. | 1 | 1 |
Pacific Equipment & Irrigation, Inc. v. Toro Co.green1 sentence1998Pacific Equip. & Irrigation, Inc. v. Toro Co., 519 N.W.2d 911, 915 (Minn.App.1994) (“The applicability of the franchise act is important because if the franchise act applies, the analysis of the Dahlberg factors may change substantially.”), review denied (Minn. Sept. 16,1994). | 1 | 1 |
Anderson v. Hunter, Keith, Marshall & Co.green1 sentence1994See Anderson v. Hunter, Keith, Marshall & Co., 417 N.W.2d 619, 624 (Minn.1988) (adopting the substantial factor test for wrongful discharge cases). | 1 | 1 |
Grise v. Whitegreen1 sentence1988Grise , 355 Mass, at 702, 247 N.E.2d at 389 (emphasis added). | 1 | 1 |
Colorado River Water Conservation District v. United Statesgreen2 sentences1988See Colorado River Water Conservation District v. United States, 424 U.S. 800, 818 , 96 S.Ct. 1236, 1246 , 47 L.Ed.2d 483 (1976). 1988See Colorado River Water Conservation District v. United States, 424 U.S. 800, 818 , 96 S.Ct. 1236, 1246 , 47 L.Ed.2d 483 (1976). | 1 | 1 |
Garo Lauderback v. American Broadcasting Companies, Inc.green1 sentence1987See Lauderback v. American Broadcasting Companies, 741 F.2d 193 (8th Cir.1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1190 , 105 S.Ct. 961 , 83 L.Ed.2d 967 (1985). | 1 | 1 |
Lauderback v. American Broadcasting Cos.green1 sentence1987See Lauderback v. American Broadcasting Companies, 741 F.2d 193 (8th Cir.1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1190 , 105 S.Ct. 961 , 83 L.Ed.2d 967 (1985). | 1 | 1 |
Michigan v. Burbankgreen1 sentence1987See Lauderback v. American Broadcasting Companies, 741 F.2d 193 (8th Cir.1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1190 , 105 S.Ct. 961 , 83 L.Ed.2d 967 (1985). | 1 | 1 |
Monagle v. Bolgergreen1 sentence1987See Lauderback v. American Broadcasting Companies, 741 F.2d 193 (8th Cir.1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1190 , 105 S.Ct. 961 , 83 L.Ed.2d 967 (1985). | 1 | 1 |
Cornfeldt v. Tongengreen2 sentences1986See Cornfeldt v. Tongen, 295 N.W.2d 638, 640 (Minn.1980) (plaintiff must show it was “more probable than not that but for the operation she would have recovered”); Prosser and Kee-ton on Torts § 41, at 268 (in the great majority of cases, the substantial factor test produces the same legal conclusion as the but-for test). 1986See Cornfeldt v. Tongen, 295 N.W.2d 638, 640 (Minn.1980) (plaintiff must show it was "more probable than not that but for the operation she would have recovered"); Prosser and Keeton on Torts § 41, at 268 (in the great majority of cases, the substantial factor test produces the same legal conclusion as the but-for test). | 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 of Minnesota v. Vidale Lee Whitson, Vidale Lee Whitson v. State of Minnesota, C5-02-2108
green
1 sentence2024Whitson, 876 N.W.2d at 304 . | 1 | 2024–2024 |
In Re the Estate of Kinney
green
1 sentence2017The supreme court disagreed, concluding that “the opportunity to consult with independent counsel is a relevant factor in the analysis,” but it is not “a requirement for a valid antenuptial agreement under common law.” Kinney, 733 N.W.2d at 124 . | 1 | 2017–2017 |
State v. Wren
green
1 sentence2016Id. | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Ake v. Oklahoma
green
2 sentences1991In Ake, 470 U.S. at 82-83 , 105 S.Ct. at 1096 , the Supreme Court held that when the defendant is able to make an ex parte threshold showing to the trial court that his sanity is likely to be a significant factor in his defense, the need for the assistance of a psychiatrist is readily apparent. 1991In Ake, 470 U.S. at 82-83 , 105 S.Ct. at 1096 , the Supreme Court held that when the defendant is able to make an ex parte threshold showing to the trial court that his sanity is likely to be a significant factor in his defense, the need for the assistance of a psychiatrist is readily apparent. | 1 | 1991–1991 |
Fed. Sec. L. Rep. P 98,209 Arthur L. Stokes v. Lawrence Lokken and Henson & Tully, a Partnership
green
2 sentences1986However, in Stokes v. Lokken, 644 F.2d 779 (8th Cir.1981), an action by a purchaser of unregistered securities, a different panel of the Eighth Circuit, without citing Was-son, stated that “the term ‘seller,’ for purposes of § 12 liability, is not limited to one who actually transfers title,” and then seemed to adopt the substantial factor test of Pharo. 1986Stokes, 644 F.2d at 785 . | 1 | 1986–1986 |
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.