13 Minnesota opinions name it 2 courts 1969–2006 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 |
|---|---|---|
Chevron Oil Co. v. Husonred2 sentences2006Second, it has been stressed that “we must * * ⅞ weigh the merits and demerits in each case by looking to the prior history of the rule in question, its purpose and effect, and whether retrospective operation will further or retard its operation.” ⅜ * * Finally, we have weighed the inequity imposed by retroactive application, for “[w]here a decision of this court could produce substantial inequitable results if applied retroactively, there is ample basis in our cases for avoiding the ‘injustice or hardship’ by a holding of nonretroactivity.” Hoff v. Kempton, 317 N.W.2d 361, 363 (Minn.1982) (qu 2006Second, it has been stressed that “we must * * ⅞ weigh the merits and demerits in each case by looking to the prior history of the rule in question, its purpose and effect, and whether retrospective operation will further or retard its operation.” ⅜ * * Finally, we have weighed the inequity imposed by retroactive application, for “[w]here a decision of this court could produce substantial inequitable results if applied retroactively, there is ample basis in our cases for avoiding the ‘injustice or hardship’ by a holding of nonretroactivity.” Hoff v. Kempton, 317 N.W.2d 361, 363 (Minn.1982) (qu | 3 | 8 |
Hoff v. Kemptongreen2 sentences2006Second, it has been stressed that "we must * * * weigh the merits and demerits in each case by looking to the prior history of the rule in question, its purpose and effect, and whether retrospective operation will further or retard its operation." * * * Finally, we have weighed the inequity imposed by retroactive application, for "[w]here a decision of this court could produce substantial inequitable results if applied retroactively, there is ample basis in our cases for avoiding the `injustice or hardship' by a holding of nonretroactivity." Hoff v. Kempton, 317 N.W.2d 361, 363 (Minn.1982) (qu 2006Second, it has been stressed that “we must * * ⅞ weigh the merits and demerits in each case by looking to the prior history of the rule in question, its purpose and effect, and whether retrospective operation will further or retard its operation.” ⅜ * * Finally, we have weighed the inequity imposed by retroactive application, for “[w]here a decision of this court could produce substantial inequitable results if applied retroactively, there is ample basis in our cases for avoiding the ‘injustice or hardship’ by a holding of nonretroactivity.” Hoff v. Kempton, 317 N.W.2d 361, 363 (Minn.1982) (qu | 3 | 6 |
Martin v. Guarantee Reserve Life Insurance Co.green2 sentences1992Co., 279 Minn. 129, 134-37 , 155 N.W.2d 744, 747-49 (1968). 1992Co., 279 Minn. 129, 134-37 , 155 N.W.2d 744, 747-49 (1968). | 1 | 1 |
Spanel v. Mounds View School District No. 621green2 sentences1975No. 621, 264 Minn. 279, 281 , 118 N. W. 2d 795, 796 (1962). 4 For a discussion of the history of the immunity of local governmental units, see Spanel v. Mounds View School Dist. 1975No. 621, 264 Minn. 279, 281 , 118 N. W. 2d 795, 796 (1962). 4 For a discussion of the history of the immunity of local governmental units, see Spanel v. Mounds View School Dist. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Minnesota. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Sabbath v. United States
green
2 sentences1984In Parker , the Minnesota Supreme Court traced the history of the rule from Semayne’s Case in 1603 to Sabbath v. United States, 391 U.S. 585 , 88 S.Ct. 1755 , 20 L.Ed.2d 828 , in 1968. 1984In Parker , the Minnesota Supreme Court traced the history of the rule from Semayne’s Case in 1603 to Sabbath v. United States, 391 U.S. 585 , 88 S.Ct. 1755 , 20 L.Ed.2d 828 , in 1968. | 1 | 1984–1984 |
State v. Parker
green
1 sentence1984Parker , 283 Minn, at 130-34, 166 N.W.2d at 350-52 . | 1 | 1984–1984 |
Willis v. Dept. of Cons. & Ec. Dev.
green
1 sentence1975No. 621, 264 Minn, 279, 282, 118 N. W. 2d 795, 797 . 5 Minn. St. 3.66 et seq. 6 Minn. St. 15.31. 7 For example, Minn. St. 559.013, adverse claims to real estate; § 582.13, boundary line cases, mortgage foreclosure, or other liens, quiet title actions; § 558.32, partition action; §§ 508.13, 508.16, land registration; § 284.08, tax forfeited land; § 161.34, trunk highway contracts; § 3.751, contract claims. 8 See, also, Willis v. Dept. of Conservation and Economic Development, 55 N. J. 534, 264 A. 2d 34 (1970), where the New Jersey Supreme Court abolished that state’s tort immunity despite the f | 1 | 1975–1975 |
Miller v. United States
green
2 sentences1969C. 394, 179 F. (2d) 456, and in Miller v. United States, 357 U. S. 301 , 78 S. Ct. 1190 , 2 L. ed. (2d) 1332. 1969C. 394, 179 F. (2d) 456, and in Miller v. United States, 357 U. S. 301 , 78 S. Ct. 1190 , 2 L. ed. (2d) 1332. | 1 | 1969–1969 |
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.