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 2007–2026 4 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. Goelzgreen2 sentences2026But as he notes, although “[t]he invited error doctrine prevents a party from asserting an error on appeal that he invited or could have prevented in the court below,” “[t]he invited error doctrine . . . does not apply to plain errors.” State v. Goelz, 743 N.W.2d 249, 258 (Minn. 2007). 2026See, e.g., State v. Goelz, 743 N.W.2d 249, 258 (Minn. 2007) (stating that “[t]he invited error doctrine prevents a party from asserting an error on appeal that he invited or could have prevented in the court below” (emphasis added)); see also State v. Carridine, 812 N.W.2d 130, 142 (Minn. 2012) (stating that “[u]nder the invited error doctrine, a party cannot assert on appeal an error that he invited or that could have been prevented at the district court”). 6 N.W.3d 79 , 94 & n.11 (Minn. 2024) (final two alterations in original). 13 We conclude that Glay did not invite the error about which h | 5 | 5 |
Krenik v. Westermangreen2 sentences2026The doctrine of invited error “precludes a party from asserting error on appeal which he invited or could have prevented in the court below.” Krenik v. Westerman, 275 N.W. 849, 852 (Minn. 1937). 2016In its opposition, the county argued that OAH had jurisdiction to hear the appeal; the county neither mentioned its BWSR appeal nor characterized its invocation of the contested-case proceedings as “protective” or made only “under protest.” We are reminded of “the doctrine of invited error[,] which precludes a party from asserting error on appeal which he invited or could have prevented in the cbuit below.” Krenik v. Westerman, 201 Minn. 255, 262 , 275 N.W. 849, 852 (1937). | 3 | 3 |
State v. Carridinegreen2 sentences2026See, e.g., State v. Goelz, 743 N.W.2d 249, 258 (Minn. 2007) (stating that “[t]he invited error doctrine prevents a party from asserting an error on appeal that he invited or could have prevented in the court below” (emphasis added)); see also State v. Carridine, 812 N.W.2d 130, 142 (Minn. 2012) (stating that “[u]nder the invited error doctrine, a party cannot assert on appeal an error that he invited or that could have been prevented at the district court”). 6 N.W.3d 79 , 94 & n.11 (Minn. 2024) (final two alterations in original). 13 We conclude that Glay did not invite the error about which h 2024See, e.g., State v. Goelz, 743 N.W.2d 249, 258 (Minn. 2007) (stating that “[t]he invited error doctrine prevents a party from asserting an error on appeal that he invited or could have prevented in the court below” (emphasis added)); see also State v. Carridine, 812 N.W.2d 130, 142 (Minn. 2012) (stating that “[u]nder the invited error doctrine, a party cannot assert on appeal an error that he invited or that could have been prevented at the district court”). | 2 | 2 |
State of Minnesota v. Anthony James Trifilettigreen1 sentence2026See, e.g., State v. Goelz, 743 N.W.2d 249, 258 (Minn. 2007) (stating that “[t]he invited error doctrine prevents a party from asserting an error on appeal that he invited or could have prevented in the court below” (emphasis added)); see also State v. Carridine, 812 N.W.2d 130, 142 (Minn. 2012) (stating that “[u]nder the invited error doctrine, a party cannot assert on appeal an error that he invited or that could have been prevented at the district court”). 6 N.W.3d 79 , 94 & n.11 (Minn. 2024) (final two alterations in original). 13 We conclude that Glay did not invite the error about which h | 1 | 1 |
In the Matter of HIBBING TACONITE MINE AND STOCKPILE PROGRESSION and Williams Creek Project Specific Wetland Mitigationgreen1 sentence2024The invited-error doctrine “precludes a party from asserting error on appeal which he invited or could have prevented in the [district] court.” In re Hibbing Taconite Mine & Stockpile Progression, 888 N.W.2d 336, 344 (Minn. App. 2016). | 1 | 1 |
Brown-Wilbert, Inc. v. Copeland Buhl & Co.green2 sentences2015“Res judicata applies equally to claims actually litigated and to claims that could have been litigated in the earlier action.” Brown-Wilbert, 732 N.W.2d at 220 . 2015The doctrine of res judicata, also known as claim preclusion, prevents a party from asserting a claim after the completion of a prior lawsuit involving an earlier claim if “‘(1) the earlier claim involved the same set of factual circumstances; (2) the earlier claim involved the same parties or their privities; (3) there was a final judgment on the merits; 4 (4) the estopped party had a full and fair opportunity to litigate the matter.’” Brown- Wilbert, Inc. v. Copeland Buhl & Co., 732 N.W.2d 209, 220 (Minn. 2007) (quoting Hauschildt v. Beckingham, 686 N.W.2d 829, 840 (Minn. 2004)); see also Ru | 1 | 1 |
Rucker v. Schmidtgreen1 sentence2015The doctrine of res judicata, also known as claim preclusion, prevents a party from asserting a claim after the completion of a prior lawsuit involving an earlier claim if “‘(1) the earlier claim involved the same set of factual circumstances; (2) the earlier claim involved the same parties or their privities; (3) there was a final judgment on the merits; 4 (4) the estopped party had a full and fair opportunity to litigate the matter.’” Brown- Wilbert, Inc. v. Copeland Buhl & Co., 732 N.W.2d 209, 220 (Minn. 2007) (quoting Hauschildt v. Beckingham, 686 N.W.2d 829, 840 (Minn. 2004)); see also Ru | 1 | 1 |
Hauschildt v. Beckinghamgreen1 sentence2015The doctrine of res judicata, also known as claim preclusion, prevents a party from asserting a claim after the completion of a prior lawsuit involving an earlier claim if “‘(1) the earlier claim involved the same set of factual circumstances; (2) the earlier claim involved the same parties or their privities; (3) there was a final judgment on the merits; 4 (4) the estopped party had a full and fair opportunity to litigate the matter.’” Brown- Wilbert, Inc. v. Copeland Buhl & Co., 732 N.W.2d 209, 220 (Minn. 2007) (quoting Hauschildt v. Beckingham, 686 N.W.2d 829, 840 (Minn. 2004)); see also Ru | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Minnesota. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
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.