6 Minnesota opinions name it 2 courts 2004–2026 1 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. Profitgreen2 sentences2026Thoresen, 965 N.W.2d at 308; see also State v. Profit, 591 N.W.2d 451, 462 (Minn. 1999) (declining to adopt the judicial estoppel doctrine). 2004Although we have never expressly adopted the doctrine of judicial estoppel, State v. Profit, 591 N.W.2d 451, 462 (Minn.1999), Glass *801 Service urges us to do so in order “to protect the integrity of the judicial process” from parties who play “ ‘fast and loose with the courts.’ ” Konstantinidis v. Chen, 626 F.2d 933, 937 (D.C.Cir.1980) (citation omitted). | 2 | 2 |
Johnson v. Wrightgreen2 sentences2006See State v. Larson, 605 N.W.2d 706 , 713 n. 11 (Minn.2000); Johnson v. Wright, 682 N.W.2d 671, 681 (Minn.App. 2004). [3] In discussing this issue, we only consider whether the MGDPA protects government data from disclosure as presented in this case. 2006See State v. Larson, 605 N.W.2d 706 , 713 n. 11 (Minn.2000); Johnson v. Wright, 682 N.W.2d 671, 681 (Minn.App.2004). . | 2 | 2 |
State v. Larsongreen2 sentences2006See State v. Larson, 605 N.W.2d 706 , 713 n. 11 (Minn.2000); Johnson v. Wright, 682 N.W.2d 671, 681 (Minn.App. 2004). [3] In discussing this issue, we only consider whether the MGDPA protects government data from disclosure as presented in this case. 2006See State v. Larson, 605 N.W.2d 706 , 713 n. 11 (Minn.2000); Johnson v. Wright, 682 N.W.2d 671, 681 (Minn.App.2004). . | 2 | 2 |
Port Authority of St. Paul v. Harstadgreen1 sentence2026Paul v. Harstad, 531 N.W.2d 496, 500 (Minn. App. 1995), rev. denied (Minn. June 14, 1995). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Hahngreen1 sentence2026In cases following Bauer and Harstad, but before Thoresen, we have also noted that the doctrine of judicial estoppel has not been recognized in Minnesota and that it is not this court’s “mandate to adopt it.” State v. Hahn, 799 N.W.2d 25, 39 (Minn. App. 2011), 17 rev. denied (Minn. Aug. 24, 2011). | 1 | 1 |
New Hampshire v. Mainegreen2 sentences2016See New Hampshire v. Maine, 532 U.S. 742, 749 , 121 S.Ct. 1808 , 149 L.Ed.2d 968 (2001). 2016See New Hampshire v. Maine, 532 U.S. 742, 749 , 121 S.Ct. 1808 , 149 L.Ed.2d 968 (2001). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Pendletongreen1 sentence2011Judicial es-toppel “is intended to prevent a party from assuming inconsistent or contradictory positions during the course of a lawsuit.” State v. Pendleton, 706 N.W.2d 500, 507 (Minn.2005). | 1 | 1 |
Athanasios Konstantinidis and Vasiliki Konstantinidis, His Wife v. C. N. Chen, M. Dgreen1 sentence2004Although we have never expressly adopted the doctrine of judicial estoppel, State v. Profit, 591 N.W.2d 451, 462 (Minn.1999), Glass *801 Service urges us to do so in order “to protect the integrity of the judicial process” from parties who play “ ‘fast and loose with the courts.’ ” Konstantinidis v. Chen, 626 F.2d 933, 937 (D.C.Cir.1980) (citation omitted). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Minnesota. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Ryan Contracting Company v. O'Neill & Murphy, LLP
green
1 sentence2026Id. | 1 | 2026–2026 |
Bauer v. Blackduck Ambulance Ass'n, Inc.
green
1 sentence2026Finally, Rakowiecki contends that our rejection of the judicial-estoppel doctrine in Danberry was incorrect because, according to Rakowiecki, we already adopted the doctrine, pointing to Bauer v. Blackduck Ambulance Association, 614 N.W.2d 747 , 749- 50 (Minn. App. 2000), and Port Authority of City of St. | 1 | 2026–2026 |
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.