9 Minnesota opinions name it 2 courts 1949–2017 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 |
|---|---|---|
Bank of Credit and Commerce v. Bk. of Pakistangreen1 sentence2009The district court engaged in a comprehensive analysis of Article 1421-J and preemptive jurisdiction and stated its belief that jurisdiction would be available in Panama after a conditional dismissal. 8 Bank of Credit & Commerce Int’l (Overseas) Ltd., 273 F.3d at 247-48 (holding that a district court can conditionally dismiss a ease if, after an analysis of relevant foreign law or a close examination of all submissions on the forum’s adequacy, the court forms a “justifiable belief’ that an alternative forum exists). | 1 | 1 |
Treichel v. Adamsgreen2 sentences1975Mr. Justice Matson, author of the opinion, stated that an enterprise does not constitute a joint venture unless each of the following four elements is present: “(a) Contribution — the parties must combine their money, property, time, or skill in some common undertaking, but the contribution of each need not be equal or of the same nature. “(b) Joint proprietorship and control — there must be a proprietary interest and right of mutual control over the subject matter of the property engaged therein. “(c) Sharing of profits but not necessarily of losses — there must be an express or implied agree 1975Mr. Justice Matson, author of the opinion, stated that an enterprise does not constitute a joint venture unless each of the following four elements is present: “(a) Contribution — the parties must combine their money, property, time, or skill in some common undertaking, but the contribution of each need not be equal or of the same nature. “(b) Joint proprietorship and control — there must be a proprietary interest and right of mutual control over the subject matter of the property engaged therein. “(c) Sharing of profits but not necessarily of losses — there must be an express or implied agree | 1 | 1 |
Rehnberg v. Minnesota Homes, Inc.green2 sentences1975The most comprehensive analysis of the theory of joint ventures is set forth in Rehnberg v. Minnesota Homes, Inc. 236 Minn. 230, 235 , 52 N. W. 2d 454, 457 (1952). 1975The most comprehensive analysis of the theory of joint ventures is set forth in Rehnberg v. Minnesota Homes, Inc. 236 Minn. 230, 235 , 52 N. W. 2d 454, 457 (1952). | 1 | 1 |
Arthur H. Aftanase v. Economy Baler Company, a Corporationgreen1 sentence1973In Mid-Continent Freight Lines v. Highway Trailer Industries, supra, we found persuasive the comprehensive analysis of Judge Blackmun, now Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court, in Aftanase v. Economy Baler Co. 343 F. 2d 187 *184 (8 Cir. 1965), in which he listed five factors for consideration: (1) The quantity of the contacts with the forum state, (2) the nature and quality of the contacts, (3) the source and connection of the cause of action with those contacts, (4) the interest of the state in providing a forum, and (5) the convenience of the parties. (1-2) With respect to th | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Minnesota. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Depue v. Flatau
green
2 sentences1989Id. at 303 , 111 N.W. at 2 . 1989Id. at 303 , 111 N.W. at 2 . | 2 | 1989–1989 |
State & Port Authority v. Northern Pacific Railway Co.
green
1 sentence2017We addressed the standard governing whether to grant a stay pending appeal in Northern Pacific Railway, 22 N.W.2d at 574-75 . | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Piper Aircraft Co. v. Reyno
green
2 sentences2009First, availability of a forum is generally satisfied when defendants are “amenable to process.” See Piper, 454 U.S. at 255 n. 22, 102 S.Ct. 252 . 2009First, availability of a forum is generally satisfied when defendants are “amenable to process.” See Piper, 454 U.S. at 255 n. 22, 102 S.Ct. 252 . | 1 | 2009–2009 |
Bachman v. Lieser
green
2 sentences1999The trustee should not have interests conflicting with those entitled to a recovery, see Bachman v. Lieser, 289 Minn. 298 , 299-300 n. 1, 184 N.W.2d 11 , 13 n. 1 (1971), and Minners v. State Farm Mut. 1999The trustee should not have interests conflicting with those entitled to a recovery, see Bachman v. Lieser, 289 Minn. 298 , 299-300 n. 1, 184 N.W.2d 11 , 13 n. 1 (1971), and Minners v. State Farm Mut. | 1 | 1999–1999 |
In Re Blodgett
green
2 sentences1994In reversing the commitment of a nonviolent (though “spanking”) pedophile, the court cautioned: As we said in Blodgett , the psychopathic personality “is an identifiable and docu-mentable violent sexually deviant condition or disorder,” and among the factors to be considered are the nature of the sexual assaults and the degree of violence involved. 510 N.W.2d at 915 . 1994In reversing the commitment of a nonviolent (though "spanking") pedophile, the court cautioned: As we said in Blodgett , the psychopathic personality "is an identifiable and documentable violent sexually deviant condition or disorder," and among the factors to be considered are the nature of the sexual assaults and the degree of violence involved. 510 N.W.2d at 915 . | 1 | 1994–1994 |
Sowada v. Motzko
green
2 sentences1975Mr. Justice Matson, author of the opinion, stated that an enterprise does not constitute a joint venture unless each of the following four elements is present: “(a) Contribution — the parties must combine their money, property, time, or skill in some common undertaking, but the contribution of each need not be equal or of the same nature. “(b) Joint proprietorship and control — there must be a proprietary interest and right of mutual control over the subject matter of the property engaged therein. “(c) Sharing of profits but not necessarily of losses — there must be an express or implied agree 1975Mr. Justice Matson, author of the opinion, stated that an enterprise does not constitute a joint venture unless each of the following four elements is present: “(a) Contribution — the parties must combine their money, property, time, or skill in some common undertaking, but the contribution of each need not be equal or of the same nature. “(b) Joint proprietorship and control — there must be a proprietary interest and right of mutual control over the subject matter of the property engaged therein. “(c) Sharing of profits but not necessarily of losses — there must be an express or implied agree | 1 | 1975–1975 |
Burdick v. Bongard
green
2 sentences1975Mr. Justice Matson, author of the opinion, stated that an enterprise does not constitute a joint venture unless each of the following four elements is present: “(a) Contribution — the parties must combine their money, property, time, or skill in some common undertaking, but the contribution of each need not be equal or of the same nature. “(b) Joint proprietorship and control — there must be a proprietary interest and right of mutual control over the subject matter of the property engaged therein. “(c) Sharing of profits but not necessarily of losses — there must be an express or implied agree 1975Mr. Justice Matson, author of the opinion, stated that an enterprise does not constitute a joint venture unless each of the following four elements is present: “(a) Contribution — the parties must combine their money, property, time, or skill in some common undertaking, but the contribution of each need not be equal or of the same nature. “(b) Joint proprietorship and control — there must be a proprietary interest and right of mutual control over the subject matter of the property engaged therein. “(c) Sharing of profits but not necessarily of losses — there must be an express or implied agree | 1 | 1975–1975 |
Moffitt v. Hereford
green
1 sentence1949There, Mr. Chief Justice Hughes (then an associate justice), speaking for the court, said ( 238 U. S. 219 , 35 S. Ct. 802 , 59 L. ed. 1282): “Statements may be found to the effect that par value is prima facie actual value (Appeal of Harris, 9 Sadler [Pa.] 233, 12 Atlantic Reporter, 743; Moffitt v. Hereford, 132 Missouri, 513, 34 S. W. 252 ), but if such statements can be deemed to announce a comprehensive rule, to be applied in the absence of evidence as to the property and business of the corporation, we cannot regard it as well founded. | 1 | 1949–1949 |
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.