11 Minnesota opinions name it 2 courts 1922–2026 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 |
|---|---|---|
Morey v. Peppingreen2 sentences1986Id.; Morey v. Peppin, 375 N.W.2d 19, 24, 25 (Minn.1985). 1986Id.; Morey v. Peppin, 375 N.W.2d 19, 24, 25 (Minn.1985). | 2 | 2 |
Marriage of Tuthill v. Tuthillgreen1 sentence2015See Minn. Stat. § 260C.607, subd. 6(e) (stating the district court is not authorized to order the responsible agency to place the child in the moving party’s home unless the district court finds that “the agency has been unreasonable in failing to make the adoptive placement and that the relative or child’s foster parent is the most suitable adoptive home to meet the child’s needs”) (emphasis added); Tuthill v. Tuthill, 399 N.W.2d 230, 232 (Minn. App. 1987) (stating that, when the moving party failed to show a prerequisite for modifying maintenance, the district court did not need to address o | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Martingreen2 sentences2005In United States v. Martin, a case addressing the retroactivity of a modification to the standard of review for sentencing departures, the First, Circuit concluded that Griffith compels courts to “apply procedural changes retroactively to all sentences that are not final, even if such application might result in disadvantage to one of the parties.” 363 F.3d 25, 46 (1st Cir. 2004). 2005The Martin court later determined, “[bjeeause [the] sentence is still subject to appeal, it is not ‘final’ for retro-activity purposes.” Id. at 46 n. 35. | 1 | 1 |
Podany v. Ericksongreen2 sentences2000See Podany, 235 Minn. at 38, 49 N.W.2d at 195 (offeree’s written acceptance clearly stated it had elected to exercise option to purchase property); Alpha Venture, 370 N.W.2d at 651-52 (offeree’s acceptance letter attached to signed letter termination of lease agreement). 2000See Podany, 235 Minn. at 38, 49 N.W.2d at 195 (offeree’s written acceptance clearly stated it had elected to exercise option to purchase property); Alpha Venture, 370 N.W.2d at 651-52 (offeree’s acceptance letter attached to signed letter termination of lease agreement). | 1 | 1 |
Alpha Venture/Vantage Properties v. Creative Carton Corp.green1 sentence2000See Podany, 235 Minn. at 38, 49 N.W.2d at 195 (offeree’s written acceptance clearly stated it had elected to exercise option to purchase property); Alpha Venture, 370 N.W.2d at 651-52 (offeree’s acceptance letter attached to signed letter termination of lease agreement). | 1 | 1 |
State on Behalf of Gunderson v. Preussgreen2 sentences1985Gunderson v. Preuss, 336 N.W.2d 546 (Minn.1983) (supreme court found the modification standard applicable when custody has been adjudicated in a paternity action). 1985See Gunderson, 336 N.W.2d at 547 . | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Minnesota. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Thiele v. Stich
green
1 sentence2026Thiele, 425 N.W.2d at 582 . | 1 | 2026–2026 |
Hassing v. Lancaster
green
2 sentences2016Because the district court’s findings inadequately addressed the child’s current endangerment in the last judicially created environment, this court reversed and remanded for “a redetermination of the modification motion according to findings that address the question of whether [the child] remained endangered in [the mother’s] care at the time of the modification hearing.” Id. at 704 . 2016Hassing therefore holds that “present environment” means “the last judicially determined custodial care arrangement and the safety of that environment at the time the modification issue is determined by the trial court.” Id. at 702 . | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Pollard v. Southdale Gardens of Edina Condominium Ass'n
green
1 sentence2016First, the parties’ lease has a nonwaiver clause, providing that “[a]cceptance of rent does not waive Owner’s right to evict Resident for any past or existing violation of any term of this lease.” The lease also states that “[n]o waiver of any right or remedy by Owner shall be found by any court without an express written agreement signed by an authorized representative of Owner.” Although the nonwaiver clause is not dispositive under Minnesota law, Akinnola did not allege a history of conduct to support a modification of the clause by conduct, as in Pollard. 698 N.W.2d at 453–54 (finding modi | 1 | 2016–2016 |
In Re Marriage of McNattin v. McNattin
green
2 sentences2005But as the Minnesota Court of Appeals pointed out in McNattin [v. McNattin, 450 N.W.2d 169 (Minn.App.1990) ], where the reservation of child support is an integral part of the agreement to modify custody, then a modification standard may apply for a subsequent award of child support. 2005Id. | 1 | 2005–2005 |
Mueller v. Grand Grove United Ancient Order of Druids
green
2 sentences1922D. 69 Minn. 236 , 72 N. W. 48 , and to exclude liability for injuries suffered by the insured when the policy is under suspension by reason of default. 1922D. 69 Minn. 236 , 72 N. W. 48 , and to exclude liability for injuries suffered by the insured when the policy is under suspension by reason of default. | 1 | 1922–1922 |
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.
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.