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.
8 Minnesota opinions name it 2 courts 1949–2024 2 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. Thomasgreen1 sentence2024See State v. Blom, 682 N.W.2d 578, 609 (Minn. 2004) (stating that “courts are vested with discretion in managing trials”); Thomas, 891 N.W.2d at 618 (referencing the “broad discretion” rule 26.03, subdivision 12(g), accords a district court to reopen a party’s case). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Blomgreen1 sentence2024See State v. Blom, 682 N.W.2d 578, 609 (Minn. 2004) (stating that “courts are vested with discretion in managing trials”); Thomas, 891 N.W.2d at 618 (referencing the “broad discretion” rule 26.03, subdivision 12(g), accords a district court to reopen a party’s case). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Minnesota. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Bendix v. the Bendix Co.
neutral
2 sentences1949Bendix v. The Bendix Co. 217 Minn. 439 , 441 , 14 N.W.2d 464 , 465 , where the court stated: "* * * It is difficult, if not impossible, to lay down a hard and fast rule that will obtain under all circumstances in determining whether such an officer is an employe. 1949Bendix v. The Bendix Co. 217 Minn. 439 , 441 , 14 N.W.2d 464 , 465 , where the court stated: "* * * It is difficult, if not impossible, to lay down a hard and fast rule that will obtain under all circumstances in determining whether such an officer is an employe. | 2 | 1949–1949 |
Gerber Products Company v. Mitchell Williams Selig Gates
green
1 sentence2024Instead, the court applied a traditional causation analysis, reasoning that “[i]t makes sense that proving a case-within-a-case is not a hard- and-fast requirement because an attorney’s negligence can result in injuries other than a loss in court.” Id. at 873 . | 1 | 2024–2024 |
State v. Wasson
green
2 sentences2002The Wasson court emphasized that “officers ‘should’ make this appraisal” but did not “[announce] a hard and fast rule that the reappraisal is required in every case.” Wasson, 615 N.W.2d at 322 . 2002Where officers do reappraise the circumstances, we must “independently determine whether what the officers observed [before making the unannounced entry] demonstrated that an unannounced entry was improper.” Id. (citation omitted). | 1 | 2002–2002 |
Lego v. Twomey
green
2 sentences1973The Supreme Court has since ruled, in Lego v. Twomey, 404 U. S. 477 , 92 S. Ct. 619 , 30 L. ed. 2d 618 (1972), that all the United States Constitution requires is that, under either the orthodox or the Massachusetts procedure, the trial court apply the preponderance-of-the-evidence, and not the reasonable-doubt, standard in determining admissibility of confessions. 1973The Supreme Court has since ruled, in Lego v. Twomey, 404 U. S. 477 , 92 S. Ct. 619 , 30 L. ed. 2d 618 (1972), that all the United States Constitution requires is that, under either the orthodox or the Massachusetts procedure, the trial court apply the preponderance-of-the-evidence, and not the reasonable-doubt, standard in determining admissibility of confessions. | 1 | 1973–1973 |
Eberhart v. Eberhart
green
2 sentences1968This rationale seems to be the underlying theoretical basis for the well-established and oft-cited Minnesota rule first promulgated in Eberhart v. Eberhart, 153 Minn. 66 , 189 N. W. 592 , that, absent unusual circumstances, where a mother by wrongful or malicious conduct deprives the father of visitation rights or where she removes the child to another state and does not inform the father of the removal or the whereabouts *194 of the child, the father is relieved of the obligation to continue making support payments accruing thereafter. 5 In Michalson v. Michalson, 263 Minn. 356, 357 , 116 N. 1968This rationale seems to be the underlying theoretical basis for the well-established and oft-cited Minnesota rule first promulgated in Eberhart v. Eberhart, 153 Minn. 66 , 189 N. W. 592 , that, absent unusual circumstances, where a mother by wrongful or malicious conduct deprives the father of visitation rights or where she removes the child to another state and does not inform the father of the removal or the whereabouts *194 of the child, the father is relieved of the obligation to continue making support payments accruing thereafter. 5 In Michalson v. Michalson, 263 Minn. 356, 357 , 116 N. | 1 | 1968–1968 |
Michalson v. Michalson
green
2 sentences1968This rationale seems to be the underlying theoretical basis for the well-established and oft-cited Minnesota rule first promulgated in Eberhart v. Eberhart, 153 Minn. 66 , 189 N. W. 592 , that, absent unusual circumstances, where a mother by wrongful or malicious conduct deprives the father of visitation rights or where she removes the child to another state and does not inform the father of the removal or the whereabouts *194 of the child, the father is relieved of the obligation to continue making support payments accruing thereafter. 5 In Michalson v. Michalson, 263 Minn. 356, 357 , 116 N. 1968This rationale seems to be the underlying theoretical basis for the well-established and oft-cited Minnesota rule first promulgated in Eberhart v. Eberhart, 153 Minn. 66 , 189 N. W. 592 , that, absent unusual circumstances, where a mother by wrongful or malicious conduct deprives the father of visitation rights or where she removes the child to another state and does not inform the father of the removal or the whereabouts *194 of the child, the father is relieved of the obligation to continue making support payments accruing thereafter. 5 In Michalson v. Michalson, 263 Minn. 356, 357 , 116 N. | 1 | 1968–1968 |
Delaney v. Dan Delaney, Inc.
neutral
2 sentences1955Mr. Justice Magney, speaking for this court in Delaney v. Dan Delaney, Inc. 227 Minn. 572, 577 , 36 N. W. (2d) 12, 15 , stated: “In determining whether an officer is also an employe, it is of course evident that each case must be determined on its own set of facts, which makes it difficult to lay down a hard and fast rule to cover the various situations. * * * “** * * Consideration must be given to the degree of control exercised over the business, the actual business relations between the corporation and the officer, the type of services performed, the regularity thereof, * * *.’ ” (Italics s 1955Mr. Justice Magney, speaking for this court in Delaney v. Dan Delaney, Inc. 227 Minn. 572, 577 , 36 N. W. (2d) 12, 15 , stated: “In determining whether an officer is also an employe, it is of course evident that each case must be determined on its own set of facts, which makes it difficult to lay down a hard and fast rule to cover the various situations. * * * “** * * Consideration must be given to the degree of control exercised over the business, the actual business relations between the corporation and the officer, the type of services performed, the regularity thereof, * * *.’ ” (Italics s | 1 | 1955–1955 |
Cosgriff v. Duluth Firemen's Relief Assn.
green
2 sentences1955Mr. Justice Magney, speaking for this court in Delaney v. Dan Delaney, Inc. 227 Minn. 572, 577 , 36 N. W. (2d) 12, 15 , stated: “In determining whether an officer is also an employe, it is of course evident that each case must be determined on its own set of facts, which makes it difficult to lay down a hard and fast rule to cover the various situations. * * * “** * * Consideration must be given to the degree of control exercised over the business, the actual business relations between the corporation and the officer, the type of services performed, the regularity thereof, * * *.’ ” (Italics s 1955Mr. Justice Magney, speaking for this court in Delaney v. Dan Delaney, Inc. 227 Minn. 572, 577 , 36 N. W. (2d) 12, 15 , stated: “In determining whether an officer is also an employe, it is of course evident that each case must be determined on its own set of facts, which makes it difficult to lay down a hard and fast rule to cover the various situations. * * * “** * * Consideration must be given to the degree of control exercised over the business, the actual business relations between the corporation and the officer, the type of services performed, the regularity thereof, * * *.’ ” (Italics s | 1 | 1955–1955 |
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.