Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Skolnick v. Gruesner, 265 N.W. 44.

30 citing documents.

Nietzel v. Farmers & Merchants State Bank 238 N.W.2d 437 Minn. 1976
Nietzel v. Farmers & Merchants State Bank 238 N.W.2d 437 Minn. 1976
Skolnick v. Gruesner, 196 Minn. 318
JOHN W. THOMAS COMPANY v. Carlson-LaVine, Inc. 189 N.W.2d 197 Minn. 1971
JOHN W. THOMAS COMPANY v. Carlson-LaVine, Inc. 189 N.W.2d 197 Minn. 1971
Co. 52 Minn. 352 , ; Bauman v. Metzger, 145 Minn. 133 , ; Skolnick v. *34 Gruesner, 196 Minn. 318 , ; Holen v. M. A. C. 250 Minn. 130 , 84 N. W. (2d) 282 ; Ketterer v. Independent School Dist.
Fingerhut Manufacturing Co. v. MacK Trucks, Inc. 125 N.W.2d 734 Minn. 1964
Fingerhut Manufacturing Co. v. MacK Trucks, Inc. 125 N.W.2d 734 Minn. 1964
Co. v. Sprague, 140 Minn. 1 , ; Skolnick v. Gruesner, 196 Minn. 318 , ; Holen v. M.A.C.
Winter v. Farmers Educational & Cooperative Union of America 107 N.W.2d 226 Minn. 1961
Winter v. Farmers Educational & Cooperative Union of America 107 N.W.2d 226 Minn. 1961
Co. v. Sprague, 140 Minn. 1 , ; Bauman v. Metzger, 145 Minn. 133 , ; Skolnick v. Gruesner, 196 Minn. 318 , ; Holen v. M. A. C. 250 Minn. 130 , 84 N. W. (2d) 282 .
Annis v. Annis 84 N.W.2d 256 Minn. 1957
Annis v. Annis 84 N.W.2d 256 Minn. 1957
9 Skolnick v. Gruesner, 196 Minn. 318 , ; Hart v. Bell, 222 Minn. 69 , 23 N. W. (2d) 375 , 24 N. W. (2d) 41 ; American Surety Co. v. Greenwald, 223 Minn. 37 , 25 N. W. (2d) 681 ; Miller v. Minneapolis Underwriters Assn. Inc. 226 Minn. 367 , 33 N. W. (2d) 48 ; 1 Dunnell, Dig.
State v. Adams 89 N.W.2d 661 Minn. 1957
Holen v. Minneapolis-St. Paul Metropolitan Airports Commission 84 N.W.2d 282 Minn. 1957
Holen v. Minneapolis-St. Paul Metropolitan Airports Commission 84 N.W.2d 282 Minn. 1957
Co. 52 Minn. 352, 354, 355 , ; Skolnick v. Gruesner, 196 Minn. 318 , ; 1 Dunnell, Dig.
Crew v. Flanagan 65 N.W.2d 878 Minn. 1954
Crew v. Flanagan 65 N.W.2d 878 Minn. 1954
It has been held that an appellate court can base a decision on a ground not presented to the court below where the question raised for the first time on appeal is decisive (Skolnick v. Gruesner, 196 Minn. 318 , ) and that this court can dispose of a case in disregard of the theory of the case in the trial court, even though the party is not allowed to shift his position himself.
Christianson v. Hager 64 N.W.2d 35 Minn. 1954
Christianson v. Hager 64 N.W.2d 35 Minn. 1954
Skolnick v. Gruesner, 196 Minn. 318 , ; 1 Dunnell, Dig.
Hess v. Koskovitch 62 N.W.2d 806 Minn. 1954
Hess v. Koskovitch 62 N.W.2d 806 Minn. 1954
In that case, this court said ( 196 Minn. 473 , ) : “* * That is not the case, however, for the statute does not alter the rule that, with an exception recently noted (Skolnick v. Gruesner, 196 Minn. 318 , ), cases will be disposed of on appeal within the limits of consideration fixed by the theory upon which they have been tried.
Behrendt v. Rassmussen 47 N.W.2d 779 Minn. 1951
Behrendt v. Rassmussen 47 N.W.2d 779 Minn. 1951
Skolnick v. Gruesner, 196 Minn. 318 , ; Allen v. Central Motors, Inc. 204 Minn. 295 , ; Edelstein v. D. M. & I. R. Ry.
Atwood v. Holmes 38 N.W.2d 62 Minn. 1949
Atwood v. Holmes 38 N.W.2d 62 Minn. 1949
has a duty to, *42 and upon its own motion may, consider and determine a case upon the ground of illegality, although such ground was neither presented to nor considered by the trial court, if such illegality (a) is apparent upon undisputed facts, (b) is in clear contravention of public policy, and (c) if a decision thereon will be decisive of the controversy on its merits, Skolnick v. Gruesner, 196 Minn. 318 , ; Hart v. Bell, 222 Minn. 69 , 23 N. W. (2d) 375 , 24 N. W. (2d) 41 .
Miller v. Minneapolis Underwriters Assn. Inc. 33 N.W.2d 48 Minn. 1948
Miller v. Minneapolis Underwriters Assn. Inc. 33 N.W.2d 48 Minn. 1948
Skolnick v. Gruesner, 196 Minn. 318 , .
Hart v. Bell 23 N.W.2d 375 Minn. 1946
Hart v. Bell 23 N.W.2d 375 Minn. 1946
Skolnick v. Gruesner, 196 Minn. 318 , 324 , 265 N.W.
Lee v. Zaske 6 N.W.2d 793 Minn. 1942
Harris v. Eggermont 265 N.W. 322 Minn. 1936
Harris v. Eggermont 265 N.W. 322 Minn. 1936
That is not the case, however, for the statute does not alter the rule that, with an exception recently noted (Skolnick v. Gruesner, 196 Minn. 318 , 265 N.W.