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 1984–2019 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 |
|---|---|---|
Doe v. Legacy Broadcasting of Minnesota, Inc.green1 sentence2017But default judgment is not appropriate unless the party against whom a judgment is sought “fails to plead or otherwise defend a claim within the time allowed by the law.” Doe v. Legacy Broad. of Minn., Inc., 504 N.W.2d 527, 528 (Minn. App. 1993); see also Minn. R. | 1 | 1 |
In Re Petition for Disciplinary Action Against Petersongreen1 sentence2008See Peterson, 456 N.W.2d at 90-91, 93 . | 1 | 1 |
Peterson v. First National Bank of Ceylongreen2 sentences1994We conclude, however, that CAC failed to satisfy the Peterson test for several reasons: (a) the stipulation does not establish that Ford’s bid at the first foreclosure was a mistake; (b) because CAC knowingly purchased Ford’s interest in the property for $120,000 and Pole must pay $127,500 to redeem, CAC’s $7,500 profit is not a “disaster” under Peterson, see Peterson, 162 Minn. at 371, 203 N.W. at 54 (foreclosure invalidated where an erroneous bid would allow redemption of a $15,000 property for $835.50); (c) because Ford’s bid may not have been a mistake, it is unclear that Pole was aware of 1994We conclude, however, that CAC failed to satisfy the Peterson test for several reasons: (a) the stipulation does not establish that Ford’s bid at the first foreclosure was a mistake; (b) because CAC knowingly purchased Ford’s interest in the property for $120,000 and Pole must pay $127,500 to redeem, CAC’s $7,500 profit is not a “disaster” under Peterson, see Peterson, 162 Minn. at 371, 203 N.W. at 54 (foreclosure invalidated where an erroneous bid would allow redemption of a $15,000 property for $835.50); (c) because Ford’s bid may not have been a mistake, it is unclear that Pole was aware of | 1 | 1 |
Berg v. Berggreen2 sentences1989The Peterson analysis, originally limited to a custody context, was later expanded to “other matters before the family court.” Berg v. Berg, 309 Minn. 281, 285 , 244 N.W.2d 149, 151 (1976). 1989The Peterson analysis, originally limited to a custody context, was later expanded to “other matters before the family court.” Berg v. Berg, 309 Minn. 281, 285 , 244 N.W.2d 149, 151 (1976). | 1 | 1 |
Marriage of Jensen v. Jensengreen2 sentences1989Also, this court has made clear that “[t]he trial court judge may receive further evidence when reviewing the referee's report.” In re Jensen, 414 N.W.2d 742, 744 (Minn.Ct.App.1987), pet. for rev. denied (Minn. Jan. 15, 1988) (emphasis in original). 1989Also, this court has made clear that “[t]he trial court judge may receive further evidence when reviewing the referee's report.” In re Jensen, 414 N.W.2d 742, 744 (Minn.Ct.App.1987), pet. for rev. denied (Minn. Jan. 15, 1988) (emphasis in original). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Minnesota. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Anderson v. Continental Insurance
green
1 sentence2019Thus, the district court appropriately determined "whether [Peterson's] claim was properly investigated and whether the results of the investigation were subjected to a reasonable evaluation and review." Anderson , 271 N.W.2d at 377 . | 1 | 2019–2019 |
Scott Peterson, Roger Smith v. City of Minneapolis, Minnesota
green
2 sentences2017The court of appeals concluded that the parties were engaged in a “dispute resolution process” during the period of time in which the City’s human resources department was investigating Peterson’s claim, which suspended the statute of limitations under Minn. Stat. § 363A.28, subd. 3(b). 878 N.W.2d at 522-23 . 2017Peterson, 878 N.W.2d at 528 . | 1 | 2017–2017 |
TCF Banking & Savings, F.A. v. Loft Homes, Inc.
green
2 sentences1994Two factors are “critical” in evaluating a court’s ability to restore the status quo — whether a party has relied to its detriment upon the foreclosure, and the “subsequently acquired rights of a third party.” Loft Homes, 439 N.W.2d at 739 . 1994Two factors are “critical” in evaluating a court’s ability to restore the status quo — whether a party has relied to its detriment upon the foreclosure, and the “subsequently acquired rights of a third party.” Loft Homes, 439 N.W.2d at 739 . | 1 | 1994–1994 |
Markel v. City of Circle Pines
green
1 sentence1993Markel, 479 N.W.2d at 385 . *879 In the present case, the Commissioner’s representative ignored the law established in Swanson and Eddins and relied instead on Markel to deny Peterson’s claim for unemployment compensation. | 1 | 1993–1993 |
Kantorowicz v. VFW Post, No. 230
green
2 sentences1987In Kantorowicz v. VFW Post, No. 230, 349 N.W.2d 597 (Minn.Ct.App.1984), this court applied the Peterson factors to find that the landowner had breached its duty of reasonable care when it failed to provide a means of safe access to its buildings. 1987In Kantorowicz v. VFW Post, No. 230, 349 N.W.2d 597 (Minn.Ct.App.1984), this court applied the Peterson factors to find that the landowner had breached its duty of reasonable care when it failed to provide a means of safe access to its buildings. | 1 | 1987–1987 |
Liberty Mutual Insurance v. Wetzel
green
1 sentence1984Findings of fact shall not be set aside unless clearly erroneous, and due regard shall be given to the opportunity of the trial court to judge the credibility of the witnesses.” But this court in In Re Trust Known as Great Northern Iron Ore Properties, 308 Minn. 221 , 243 N.W.2d 302 , cert. denied sub nom., Arms v. Watson, 429 U.S. 1001 , 97 S.Ct. 530 , 50 L.Ed.2d 612 (1976), expanded the scope of review in some cases: “Where as in this case, the critical evidence is documentary, there is no necessity to defer to the trial court’s assessment of the meaning and credibility of that evidence.” 30 | 1 | 1984–1984 |
Carolina Power & Light Co. v. Moore
green
1 sentence1984Findings of fact shall not be set aside unless clearly erroneous, and due regard shall be given to the opportunity of the trial court to judge the credibility of the witnesses.” But this court in In Re Trust Known as Great Northern Iron Ore Properties, 308 Minn. 221 , 243 N.W.2d 302 , cert. denied sub nom., Arms v. Watson, 429 U.S. 1001 , 97 S.Ct. 530 , 50 L.Ed.2d 612 (1976), expanded the scope of review in some cases: “Where as in this case, the critical evidence is documentary, there is no necessity to defer to the trial court’s assessment of the meaning and credibility of that evidence.” 30 | 1 | 1984–1984 |
City of Chicago v. Dixie Dairy Co.
green
1 sentence1984Findings of fact shall not be set aside unless clearly erroneous, and due regard shall be given to the opportunity of the trial court to judge the credibility of the witnesses.” But this court in In Re Trust Known as Great Northern Iron Ore Properties, 308 Minn. 221 , 243 N.W.2d 302 , cert. denied sub nom., Arms v. Watson, 429 U.S. 1001 , 97 S.Ct. 530 , 50 L.Ed.2d 612 (1976), expanded the scope of review in some cases: “Where as in this case, the critical evidence is documentary, there is no necessity to defer to the trial court’s assessment of the meaning and credibility of that evidence.” 30 | 1 | 1984–1984 |
In Re Trust Known as Great Northern Iron Ore Properties
green
2 sentences1984Findings of fact shall not be set aside unless clearly erroneous, and due regard shall be given to the opportunity of the trial court to judge the credibility of the witnesses.” But this court in In Re Trust Known as Great Northern Iron Ore Properties, 308 Minn. 221 , 243 N.W.2d 302 , cert. denied sub nom., Arms v. Watson, 429 U.S. 1001 , 97 S.Ct. 530 , 50 L.Ed.2d 612 (1976), expanded the scope of review in some cases: “Where as in this case, the critical evidence is documentary, there is no necessity to defer to the trial court’s assessment of the meaning and credibility of that evidence.” 30 1984Findings of fact shall not be set aside unless clearly erroneous, and due regard shall be given to the opportunity of the trial court to judge the credibility of the witnesses.” But this court in In Re Trust Known as Great Northern Iron Ore Properties, 308 Minn. 221 , 243 N.W.2d 302 , cert. denied sub nom., Arms v. Watson, 429 U.S. 1001 , 97 S.Ct. 530 , 50 L.Ed.2d 612 (1976), expanded the scope of review in some cases: “Where as in this case, the critical evidence is documentary, there is no necessity to defer to the trial court’s assessment of the meaning and credibility of that evidence.” 30 | 1 | 1984–1984 |
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.