Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
9 Minnesota opinions name it 2 courts 1934–2016 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 |
|---|---|---|
State v. Costellogreen1 sentence2003For example, in State v. Costello, 646 N.W.2d 204, 215 (Minn.2002), we held that allowing jurors to question witnesses was error and was not subject to a harmless-error analysis because it would be impossible to determine the effects of the error. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Minnesota. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Griffis v. Luban
green
2 sentences2016Id. at 534-35 . 2015Griffis, 646 N.W.2d at 534 . | 2 | 2015–2016 |
Estate of Keeley v. Ochs
green
2 sentences1969In addition, we held in In re Estate of Keeley, 167 Minn. 120, 124 , 208 N. W. 535, 537 , that— “* * * when a beneficiary of a substantial portion of the estate sustains a fiduciary or confidential relation with the testator and acts as the scriviner [sic] in drawing the will or controls its drafting, such facts alone will make a prima facie case and will sustain a finding of undue influence.” While it was the children of decedent’s attorney who were the sole beneficiaries of the will rather than the attorney himself, under the circumstances of this case surely the same rule must apply. 1 Appe 1969In addition, we held in In re Estate of Keeley, 167 Minn. 120, 124 , 208 N. W. 535, 537 , that— “* * * when a beneficiary of a substantial portion of the estate sustains a fiduciary or confidential relation with the testator and acts as the scriviner [sic] in drawing the will or controls its drafting, such facts alone will make a prima facie case and will sustain a finding of undue influence.” While it was the children of decedent’s attorney who were the sole beneficiaries of the will rather than the attorney himself, under the circumstances of this case surely the same rule must apply. 1 Appe | 2 | 1969–1969 |
State v. Crandall
green
1 sentence2003In Crandall , the district court inadvertently allowed an alternate jury member to remain with the jury for the initial part of deliberations. 452 N.W.2d at 710 . | 1 | 2003–2003 |
Lieberman v. Korsh
green
2 sentences2002Id. 622 N.W.2d at 386 . 2002Id. 622 N.W.2d at 386 . | 1 | 2002–2002 |
Blatz v. Allina Health System
green
2 sentences2002Id. 622 N.W.2d at 386 . 2002Id. 622 N.W.2d at 386 . | 1 | 2002–2002 |
Imo Industries, Inc. v. Kiekert Ag
green
1 sentence2002We conclude that something more than mere effects in the forum state is required, and agree with the Third Circuit that the Supreme Court did not “carve out a special intentional torts exception to the traditional specific jurisdiction analysis, so that a plaintiff could always sue in his or her home state.” Imo Indus., 155 F.3d at 265 . | 1 | 2002–2002 |
United States v. Pignatiello
green
2 sentences1986In United States v. Pignatiello, supra, the district court concluded that “a review of all of these cases reinforces the conclusion that the only effective sanction for a violation of Rule 6(d) is dismissal without any further inquiry into the effects of that violation.” 582 F.Supp. at 255 . 1986In United States v. Pignatiello, supra, the district court concluded that “a review of all of these cases reinforces the conclusion that the only effective sanction for a violation of Rule 6(d) is dismissal without any further inquiry into the effects of that violation.” 582 F.Supp. at 255 . | 1 | 1986–1986 |
Viebahn v. Board of County Commissioners
green
2 sentences1934The plaintiffs.in their effort to avoid the effects of the doctrine of ultra vires rely largely upon the case of Viebahn v. Board of Co. Commrs. of Crow Wing County, 96 Minn. 276 , 104 N. W. 1089 , 3 L.R.A. 1934The plaintiffs.in their effort to avoid the effects of the doctrine of ultra vires rely largely upon the case of Viebahn v. Board of Co. Commrs. of Crow Wing County, 96 Minn. 276 , 104 N. W. 1089 , 3 L.R.A. | 1 | 1934–1934 |
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.