7 Minnesota opinions name it 1 courts 1908–1979 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 |
|---|---|---|
Clark v. Banner Grain Co.green2 sentences1979Clark v. Banner Grain Co., 195 Minn. 44, 53 , 261 N.W. 596, 602 (1935). 1979Clark v. Banner Grain Co., 195 Minn. 44, 53 , 261 N.W. 596, 602 (1935). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Minnesota. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Trask v. Graham
green
2 sentences1947Trask v. Graham, 47 Minn. 571 , 50 N.W. 917 ." (Italics supplied.) In 32 Am. 1947Trask v. Graham, 47 Minn. 571 , 50 N.W. 917 ." (Italics supplied.) In 32 Am. | 2 | 1915–1947 |
Looney v. Drometer
neutral
1 sentence1931We applied the doctrine when this statute was involved in Baxter v. Coughlin, 70 Minn. 1 , 72 N.W. 797 ; Johnson v. Larson, 177 Minn. 60 , 224 N.W. 466 ; and Johnson v. Floan, 183 Minn. 461 , 237 N.W. 23 . 2. | 1 | 1931–1931 |
Baxter v. Coughlin
neutral
1 sentence1931We applied the doctrine when this statute was involved in Baxter v. Coughlin, 70 Minn. 1 , 72 N.W. 797 ; Johnson v. Larson, 177 Minn. 60 , 224 N.W. 466 ; and Johnson v. Floan, 183 Minn. 461 , 237 N.W. 23 . 2. | 1 | 1931–1931 |
Johnson v. Floan
neutral
2 sentences1931We applied the doctrine when this statute was involved in Baxter v. Coughlin, 70 Minn. 1 , 72 N.W. 797 ; Johnson v. Larson, 177 Minn. 60 , 224 N.W. 466 ; and Johnson v. Floan, 183 Minn. 461 , 237 N.W. 23 . 2. 1931We applied the doctrine when this statute was involved in Baxter v. Coughlin, 70 Minn. 1 , 72 N.W. 797 ; Johnson v. Larson, 177 Minn. 60 , 224 N.W. 466 ; and Johnson v. Floan, 183 Minn. 461 , 237 N.W. 23 . 2. | 1 | 1931–1931 |
Johnson v. Larson
neutral
2 sentences1931We applied the doctrine when this statute was involved in Baxter v. Coughlin, 70 Minn. 1 , 72 N.W. 797 ; Johnson v. Larson, 177 Minn. 60 , 224 N.W. 466 ; and Johnson v. Floan, 183 Minn. 461 , 237 N.W. 23 . 2. 1931We applied the doctrine when this statute was involved in Baxter v. Coughlin, 70 Minn. 1 , 72 N.W. 797 ; Johnson v. Larson, 177 Minn. 60 , 224 N.W. 466 ; and Johnson v. Floan, 183 Minn. 461 , 237 N.W. 23 . 2. | 1 | 1931–1931 |
Klinkert v. Streissguth
neutral
1 sentence1926Under all the circumstances we think plaintiff was concluded by the judgment finally entered when all of the issues litigated in the first action were disposed of and that the case does not fall within the exception to the application of the general rule in respect to the effect of a former adjudication, which was noted in State of Wisconsin v. Torinus, supra. Even though plaintiff’s right to the income from the trust estate after she commenced the first action was not litigated in the original action, it might have been, and the rule of Klinkert v. Streissguth, 155 Minn. 388 , 193 N. W. 687 , | 1 | 1926–1926 |
Barnes v. Godfrey
green
1 sentence1926Under all the circumstances we think plaintiff was concluded by the judgment finally entered when all of the issues litigated in the first action were disposed of and that the case does not fall within the exception to the application of the general rule in respect to the effect of a former adjudication, which was noted in State of Wisconsin v. Torinus, supra. Even though plaintiff’s right to the income from the trust estate after she commenced the first action was not litigated in the original action, it might have been, and the rule of Klinkert v. Streissguth, 155 Minn. 388 , 193 N. W. 687 , | 1 | 1926–1926 |
Holmes v. Crummett
green
2 sentences1925Holmes v. Crummett, 30 Minn. 23 , 13 N. W. 924 ; Bottineau v. Aetna Life Ins. 1925Holmes v. Crummett, 30 Minn. 23 , 13 N. W. 924 ; Bottineau v. Aetna Life Ins. | 1 | 1925–1925 |
Tolbert v. Horton
green
2 sentences1908The general rule is thus stated in Tolbert v. Horton, 33 Minn. 104 , 22 N. W. 126 : “The general rule is that a description in a chattel mortgage of the mortgaged property is sufficient if it will enable a third person, aided bjr inquiries which the instrument itself suggests, to identify the property.” In that case, however, the mortgage under which the defendant claimed expressly stated that the property was subject to the mortgage of the plaintiff, and the court restricted the application of the general rule to the facts in that case by the observation that it was to be noted that the defen 1908The general rule is thus stated in Tolbert v. Horton, 33 Minn. 104 , 22 N. W. 126 : “The general rule is that a description in a chattel mortgage of the mortgaged property is sufficient if it will enable a third person, aided bjr inquiries which the instrument itself suggests, to identify the property.” In that case, however, the mortgage under which the defendant claimed expressly stated that the property was subject to the mortgage of the plaintiff, and the court restricted the application of the general rule to the facts in that case by the observation that it was to be noted that the defen | 1 | 1908–1908 |
Schneider v. Anderson
neutral
2 sentences1908The same general rule was applied in Schneider v. Anderson, 77 Minn. 124 , 79 N. W. 603 , where the contest was between a mortgagee and the sheriff, who had levied upon the property. 1908The same general rule was applied in Schneider v. Anderson, 77 Minn. 124 , 79 N. W. 603 , where the contest was between a mortgagee and the sheriff, who had levied upon the property. | 1 | 1908–1908 |
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.