Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Seiz v. Citizens Pure Ice Co., 290 N.W. 802.

73 citing documents.

Minnesota Lawyers Mutual Insurance Company, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
92 (Minn. 1934); State ex rel.
Sylvester L. Zurn, individually and as beneficiary of the Sylvester L. Zurn Trust, dated December 30, 2002, et … Minn. Ct. App. 2025
(declining to consider claims where they were “based on a hypothetical state of facts”); rev’d on other grounds, (“[W]e must decide the case on the present facts .
Section 21 Southeast, LLC, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2024
10 Put differently, a court “has no jurisdiction over a declaratory judgment proceeding unless there is a justiciable controversy.” Onvoy, d at 617 (); see also Weavewood, d at 579 (“A declaratory judgment is a procedural device through which a party’s existing legal rights may be vindicated so long as a justiciable controversy exists.” (quotation omitted)).
Minn. 2021
See Seiz v. Citizens Pure Ice 13 Co., (stating th at to be justiciable, a controversy must “involve[] definite and concrete assertions of right”).
Fern Hill Place Retail Association, Inc., Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Here, appellant im properly and prematurely seeks a judicial declaration that would amount to “advising what the law would be upon a hypothetical state of facts.” Seiz v. Citizens Pure Ice Co. , 207 Minn. 277, 281 , 290 N.W.
Minn. Sands, LLC v. Cnty. of Winona 917 N.W.2d 775 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Minn. Sands, LLC v. Cnty. of Winona 917 N.W.2d 775 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
See Seiz v. Citizens Pure Ice Co. , 207 Minn. 277 , 281, 290 N.W.
Bicking v. City of Minneapolis 891 N.W.2d 304 Minn. 2017
Bicking v. City of Minneapolis 891 N.W.2d 304 Minn. 2017
This genuine controversy can be resolved by specific relief—declaring the City’s authority to refuse to put this particular question on the ballot based on the specific language of the actual proposed question'—so we do not have "a hypothetical state of facts.” Seiz v. Citizens Pure Ice Co., 207 Minn. 277, 281 , 290 N.W.
In Re the GUARDIANSHIP OF Jeffers J. TSCHUMY, Ward 853 N.W.2d 728 Minn. 2014
In Re the GUARDIANSHIP OF Jeffers J. TSCHUMY, Ward 853 N.W.2d 728 Minn. 2014
The other case the dissent cites — Seiz v. Citizens Pure Ice Co., 207 Minn. 277 , 290 N.W.
Westfield Insurane Co. v. Wensmann, Inc. 840 N.W.2d 438 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
Westfield Insurane Co. v. Wensmann, Inc. 840 N.W.2d 438 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
Westfield also cites Seiz v. Citizens Pure Ice Co., 207 Minn. 277 , 290 N.W.
State v. M.D.T. 831 N.W.2d 276 Minn. 2013
State Ex Rel. Friends of the Riverfront v. City of Minneapolis 751 N.W.2d 586 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
State Ex Rel. Friends of the Riverfront v. City of Minneapolis 751 N.W.2d 586 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
Sviggum, d at 322 (citing Seiz v. Citizens Pure Ice Co., 207 Minn. 277, 283 , 290 N.W.
Onvoy, Inc. v. Allete, Inc. 736 N.W.2d 611 Minn. 2007
Onvoy, Inc. v. Allete, Inc. 736 N.W.2d 611 Minn. 2007
Seiz v. Citizens Pure Ice Co., 207 Minn. 277, 281 , 290 N.W.
State Ex Rel. Sviggum v. Hanson 732 N.W.2d 312 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
State Ex Rel. Sviggum v. Hanson 732 N.W.2d 312 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
But declaratory relief still requires a ease *322 or controversy, and we will not issue “declarations upon remote contingencies or as to matters where the plaintiffs interest is merely contingent upon the happening of some event in the future.” Seiz v. Citizens Pure Ice Co., 207 Minn. 277, 283 , 290 N.W.
Unbank Co., LLP v. Merwin Drug Co., Inc. 677 N.W.2d 105 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
Unbank Co., LLP v. Merwin Drug Co., Inc. 677 N.W.2d 105 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
See Seiz v. Citizens Pure Ice Co., 207 Minn. 277, 285 , 290 N.W.
Cincinnati Insurance Co. v. Franck 621 N.W.2d 270 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
Cincinnati Insurance Co. v. Franck 621 N.W.2d 270 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
Izaak Walton League, d at 854 ; Seiz v. Citizens Pure Ice Co., 207 Minn. 277, 281 , 290 N.W.
Rupp v. Mayasich 561 N.W.2d 555 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
Rupp v. Mayasich 561 N.W.2d 555 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
see also Seiz v. Citizens Pure Ice Co., 207 Minn. 277, 281 , 290 N.W.
Rice Lake Contracting Corp. v. Rust Environment & Infrastructure, Inc. 549 N.W.2d 96 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
Rice Lake Contracting Corp. v. Rust Environment & Infrastructure, Inc. 549 N.W.2d 96 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
The only prerequisite for a court’s exercise of jurisdiction in declaratory judgment actions is the presence of a “justiciable controversy.” Seiz v. Citizens Pure Ice Co., 207 Minn. 277, 290 N.W.
Marriage of Rosenfeld v. Rosenfeld 529 N.W.2d 724 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
Marriage of Rosenfeld v. Rosenfeld 529 N.W.2d 724 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
Smith v. Haveland, 223 Minn. 89, 92 , -77 (1946); Seiz v. Citizens Pure Ice Co., 207 Minn. 277, 281 , 290 N.W.
Graham v. Crow Wing County Board of Commissioners 515 N.W.2d 81 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
Graham v. Crow Wing County Board of Commissioners 515 N.W.2d 81 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
Smith v. Haveland, 223 Minn. 89, 92 , Seiz v. Citizens Pure Ice Co., 207 Minn. 277, 281 , 290 N.W.
Thuma v. Kroschel 506 N.W.2d 14 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
Thuma v. Kroschel 506 N.W.2d 14 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
Seiz v. Citizens Pure Ice Co., 207 Minn. 277, 281 , 290 N.W.
RS v. State 447 N.W.2d 205 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
RS v. State 447 N.W.2d 205 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Seiz v. Citizens Pure Ice Co., 207 Minn. 277, 281 , 290 N.W.
R.S. v. State 447 N.W.2d 205 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
R.S. v. State 447 N.W.2d 205 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Seiz v. Citizens Pure Ice Co., 207 Minn. 277, 281 , 290 N.W.
Scheibel v. Pavlak 282 N.W.2d 843 Minn. 1979
Scheibel v. Pavlak 282 N.W.2d 843 Minn. 1979
294 (1907); Seiz v. Citizens Pure Ice Co., 207 Minn. 277 , 290 N.W.
Holiday Acres No. 3 v. Midwest Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n of Minneapolis 271 N.W.2d 445 Minn. 1978
Holiday Acres No. 3 v. Midwest Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n of Minneapolis 271 N.W.2d 445 Minn. 1978
As we stated in Seiz v. Citizens Pure Ice Co., 207 Minn. 277, 281 , 290 N.W.
St. Paul Area Chamber of Commerce v. Marzitelli 258 N.W.2d 585 Minn. 1977
St. Paul Area Chamber of Commerce v. Marzitelli 258 N.W.2d 585 Minn. 1977
In Seiz v. Citizens Pure Ice Co., 207 Minn. 277, 281 , 290 N.W.
Markwardt v. State, Water Resources Board 254 N.W.2d 371 Minn. 1977
Markwardt v. State, Water Resources Board 254 N.W.2d 371 Minn. 1977
Seiz v. Citizens Pure Ice Co., 207 Minn. 277 , 290 N.W.
Izaak Walton League of America Endowment, Inc. v. State 252 N.W.2d 852 Minn. 1977
Izaak Walton League of America Endowment, Inc. v. State 252 N.W.2d 852 Minn. 1977
County Board of Education v. Borgen, 192 Minn. 512 , Seiz v. Citizens Pure Ice Co. 207 Minn. 277 , State ex rel.
Minnesota Civil Liberties Union v. State 224 N.W.2d 344 Minn. 1974
Minnesota Civil Liberties Union v. State 224 N.W.2d 344 Minn. 1974
Seiz v. Citizens Pure Ice Co. 207 Minn. 277 , Rice v. Austin, 19 Minn. 74 (103) (1872); In the Matter of the Application of the Senate, 10 Minn. 56 (78) (1865).