8 Minnesota opinions name it 2 courts 1913–1997 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 |
|---|---|---|
Freeburg v. Lillydale Grand Central Corp.green2 sentences1986See Freeburg v. Lillydale Grand Central Corp., 284 Minn. 388, 393 , 170 N.W.2d 330, 334 (1969) (no abuse of discretion in excluding witnesses not disclosed before trial, particularly since exclusion was based on local rule); see also Montgomery v. American Hoist & Derrick Co., 350 N.W.2d 405, 408 (Minn.Ct.App.1984) (trial court properly refused to admit an affidavit submitted at the hearing, where the party had more than enough time to comply with a rule requiring filing 10 days before the hearing). 1986See Freeburg v. Lillydale Grand Central Corp., 284 Minn. 388, 393 , 170 N.W.2d 330, 334 (1969) (no abuse of discretion in excluding witnesses not disclosed before trial, particularly since exclusion was based on local rule); see also Montgomery v. American Hoist & Derrick Co., 350 N.W.2d 405, 408 (Minn.Ct.App.1984) (trial court properly refused to admit an affidavit submitted at the hearing, where the party had more than enough time to comply with a rule requiring filing 10 days before the hearing). | 2 | 2 |
Bunkowske v. Briardgreen2 sentences1997See, e.g., Bunkowske v. Briard, 461 N.W.2d 392, 395 (Minn.App.1990) (holding that district court’s narrow application of a local rule conflicted with a state civil procedure rule); Pearce v. Lindstrom, 443 N.W.2d 857, 859 (Minn.App.1989) (holding that a local rule conflicted with a state civil procedure rule in violation of Minn.Stat. § 480.055). 1997See, e.g., Bunkowske v. Briard, 461 N.W.2d 392, 395 (Minn.App.1990) (holding that district court’s narrow application of a local rule conflicted with a state civil procedure rule); Pearce v. Lindstrom, 443 N.W.2d 857, 859 (Minn.App.1989) (holding that a local rule conflicted with a state civil procedure rule in violation of Minn.Stat. § 480.055). | 1 | 1 |
Pearce v. Lindstromgreen2 sentences1997See, e.g., Bunkowske v. Briard, 461 N.W.2d 392, 395 (Minn.App.1990) (holding that district court’s narrow application of a local rule conflicted with a state civil procedure rule); Pearce v. Lindstrom, 443 N.W.2d 857, 859 (Minn.App.1989) (holding that a local rule conflicted with a state civil procedure rule in violation of Minn.Stat. § 480.055). 1997See, e.g., Bunkowske v. Briard, 461 N.W.2d 392, 395 (Minn.App.1990) (holding that district court’s narrow application of a local rule conflicted with a state civil procedure rule); Pearce v. Lindstrom, 443 N.W.2d 857, 859 (Minn.App.1989) (holding that a local rule conflicted with a state civil procedure rule in violation of Minn.Stat. § 480.055). | 1 | 1 |
Mely v. Morrisgreen2 sentences1987Agents, Inc. v. Aetna Life & Casualty Co., 497 F.2d 1151, 1154 (2nd Cir.1974) (misjoin- der of 164 defendants whose claims rested on thousands of unrelated transactions was a “gross abuse of procedure” warranting dismissal); Mely v. Morris, 409 P.2d 979, 982 (Alaska 1966) (rule gives trial court discretion to control and administer its calendar); Cory v. Mark Twain Life Ins. 1987Agents, Inc. v. Aetna Life & Casualty Co., 497 F.2d 1151, 1154 (2nd Cir.1974) (misjoinder *426 of 164 defendants whose claims rested on thousands of unrelated transactions was a "gross abuse of procedure" warranting dismissal); Mely v. Morris, 409 P.2d 979, 982 (Alaska 1966) (rule gives trial court discretion to control and administer its calendar); Cory v. Mark Twain Life Ins. | 1 | 1 |
Henderson v. Duncangreen2 sentences1987See, e.g., Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1425 (9th Cir.1986) (dismissal warranted where counsel’s failure to comply with a local rule caused inordinate delay and prejudice to the court’s need to manage its docket); Nassau County Ass’n of Ins. 1987See, e.g., Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1425 (9th Cir.1986) (dismissal warranted where counsel's failure to comply with a local rule caused inordinate delay and prejudice to the court's need to manage its docket); Nassau County Ass'n of Ins. | 1 | 1 |
The Nassau County Association of Insurance Agents, Inc. v. Aetna Life & Casualty Co.green2 sentences1987Agents, Inc. v. Aetna Life & Casualty Co., 497 F.2d 1151, 1154 (2nd Cir.1974) (misjoin- der of 164 defendants whose claims rested on thousands of unrelated transactions was a “gross abuse of procedure” warranting dismissal); Mely v. Morris, 409 P.2d 979, 982 (Alaska 1966) (rule gives trial court discretion to control and administer its calendar); Cory v. Mark Twain Life Ins. 1987Agents, Inc. v. Aetna Life & Casualty Co., 497 F.2d 1151, 1154 (2nd Cir.1974) (misjoinder *426 of 164 defendants whose claims rested on thousands of unrelated transactions was a "gross abuse of procedure" warranting dismissal); Mely v. Morris, 409 P.2d 979, 982 (Alaska 1966) (rule gives trial court discretion to control and administer its calendar); Cory v. Mark Twain Life Ins. | 1 | 1 |
Montgomery v. American Hoist & Derrick Co.green1 sentence1986See Freeburg v. Lillydale Grand Central Corp., 284 Minn. 388, 393 , 170 N.W.2d 330, 334 (1969) (no abuse of discretion in excluding witnesses not disclosed before trial, particularly since exclusion was based on local rule); see also Montgomery v. American Hoist & Derrick Co., 350 N.W.2d 405, 408 (Minn.Ct.App.1984) (trial court properly refused to admit an affidavit submitted at the hearing, where the party had more than enough time to comply with a rule requiring filing 10 days before the hearing). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Minnesota. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Anson v. Fisher Amusement Corp.
green
2 sentences1971Retirement benefits, on the other hand, look to a withdrawal from the labor market and more nearly approximate a reward for past services.” 252 Minn. 70 , 89 N. W. (2d) 177 . 6 In Anson v. Fisher Amusement Corp. 254 Minn. 93, 101 , 93 N. W. (2d) 815, 821 , the court held: “* * * [W]hen a nonmember of a union local knowingly accepts — or continues — employment with an employer who is subject to the seniority provisions of a collective-bargaining agreement with the union local, he thereby ratifies and accepts the terms of the contract, and, subject to those terms, he constitutes the union his ba 1971Retirement benefits, on the other hand, look to a withdrawal from the labor market and more nearly approximate a reward for past services.” 252 Minn. 70 , 89 N. W. (2d) 177 . 6 In Anson v. Fisher Amusement Corp. 254 Minn. 93, 101 , 93 N. W. (2d) 815, 821 , the court held: “* * * [W]hen a nonmember of a union local knowingly accepts — or continues — employment with an employer who is subject to the seniority provisions of a collective-bargaining agreement with the union local, he thereby ratifies and accepts the terms of the contract, and, subject to those terms, he constitutes the union his ba | 1 | 1971–1971 |
State v. Northern Pacific Railway Co.
green
2 sentences1956Co. 176 Minn. 501, 507 , 223 N. W. 915, 917 , in reviewing the various acts since 1911 (c. 243) whereby the legislature withdrew from municipalities certain powers delegated to them and transferred the same to the commission, this court appropriately said: “* * * In enacting these several statutes, the legislature is presumed to have known and had in mind all existing laws relating to the subject matter and to have enacted them in the light of such knowledge; and they must be construed so as to harmonize with each other and give full effect to all so far as this may reasonably be done.” 6 If w 1956Co. 176 Minn. 501, 507 , 223 N. W. 915, 917 , in reviewing the various acts since 1911 (c. 243) whereby the legislature withdrew from municipalities certain powers delegated to them and transferred the same to the commission, this court appropriately said: “* * * In enacting these several statutes, the legislature is presumed to have known and had in mind all existing laws relating to the subject matter and to have enacted them in the light of such knowledge; and they must be construed so as to harmonize with each other and give full effect to all so far as this may reasonably be done.” 6 If w | 1 | 1956–1956 |
Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway Co. v. Harold
green
1 sentence1917Co. v. Harold, 241 U. S. 371, 378 , 6 Sup. Ct. 665, 60 L. ed. 1050, where the state court applied the local rule under which the innocent holder of a bill of lading was invested with rights not available to the shipper, the judgment was reversed; such rule being considered in direct conflict with the general commercial law as settled by the Federal Supreme Court. | 1 | 1917–1917 |
Southern Pacific Co. v. Crenshaw
green
2 sentences1913The inconsistencies and diversities of rulings in state and Federal courts influenced Congress in establishing uniformity and certainty of obligation and liability.' The following language of the court in Southern Pacific Co. v. Crenshaw, 5 Ga. App. 675, 687 , 63 S. E. 865 , is approved in the Croninger case [ 226 U. S. 505 ] as descriptive of the situation before the final action of Congress: “Some states allowed carriers to exempt themselves from all or a. part of the common law liability, by rule, regulation, or contract; others did not; the Federal courts sitting in the various states were 1913The inconsistencies and diversities of rulings in state and Federal courts influenced Congress in establishing uniformity and certainty of obligation and liability.' The following language of the court in Southern Pacific Co. v. Crenshaw, 5 Ga. App. 675, 687 , 63 S. E. 865 , is approved in the Croninger case [ 226 U. S. 505 ] as descriptive of the situation before the final action of Congress: “Some states allowed carriers to exempt themselves from all or a. part of the common law liability, by rule, regulation, or contract; others did not; the Federal courts sitting in the various states were | 1 | 1913–1913 |
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.