Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Robinette v. Price, 8 N.W.2d 800.

61 citing documents.

In re the Marriage of: Minn. Ct. App. 2025
“Subject-matter jurisdiction refers to a court’s “authority to hear and determine a particular class of actions and the particular questions which the court assumes to decide.”
In re Petition for Disciplinary Action Against David L. Ludescher, a Minnesota Attorney, Registration No. 194347. ... Minn. 2023
In re Petition for Disciplinary Action Against David L. Ludescher, a Minnesota Attorney, Registration No. 194347. ... Minn. 2023
we held that, “[a] sheriff, being neither permitted nor required to inquire into the validity of an order placed in his hands for execution, is protected by the order even though the proceedings in which it was issued are erroneous and voidable.” The Robinette holding 5 Our decision in
Megan Guetzkow v. Brian John Irgens Minn. Ct. App. 2023
Megan Guetzkow v. Brian John Irgens Minn. Ct. App. 2023
And a party cannot attack subject matter jurisdiction just because they disagree with the result of the decision, as subject matter jurisdiction “comprehends the power to decide a particular case wrongly as well as rightly.”
In re the Matter of Joseph Rued, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
The concept of subject-matter jurisdiction “refers to a court’s authority ‘to hear and determine a particular class of actions and the particular questions’ presented to the court for its decisi on.” Giersdorf v. A & M Constr., Inc., ().
In the Matter of the Welfare of the Child of: S.B.G., Parent. Minn. 2023
Otter Tail County, Department of Land and Resource, Plaintiff, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
moved to vacate the 2011 judgment as void, arguing that it effected an unconstitutional taking and the district court “had no subject matter jurisdiction or authority to make an unconstitutional Order.” But as the district court observed in rejecting this argument, subject-matter jurisdiction “comprehends the power to decide a particular case wrongly as well as rightly.” see also Park Elm Homeowner’s Ass’n v. Mooney, (“A judgment is not void .
In the Matter of the Welfare of the Child of: S. B. G., Parent. Minn. Ct. App. 2022
The concept of subject-matter jurisdiction “refers to a court’s authority ‘to hear and determine a particular class of actions and the particular questions’ presented to the court for its decisi on.” Giersdorf v. A & M Constr., Inc., ().
A17-0981 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
(citing Robinette v. Price, 214 Minn. 521, 526, .
McCullough and Sons, Inc. v. City of Vadnais Heights, A14-1992 883 N.W.2d 580 Minn. 2016
McCullough and Sons, Inc. v. City of Vadnais Heights, A14-1992 883 N.W.2d 580 Minn. 2016
See Robinette v. Price, 214 Minn. 521, 526, see also Giersdorf v. A & M Constr., Inc., (“Subject matter jurisdiction is a court’s ‘statutory or constitutional power to adjudicate the case.’ ” (quoting Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env’t, 523 U.S. 83, 89 (1998))).
Mark R. Zweber v. Credit River Township 882 N.W.2d 605 Minn. 2016
Mark R. Zweber v. Credit River Township 882 N.W.2d 605 Minn. 2016
Inc., (quoting Robinette v. Price, 214 Minn. 521, 526 , ).
Nicol Nagel, individually and ESY Investments, LLC, a California limited liability company v. Tracy A. Westen 865 N.W.2d 325 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Nicol Nagel, individually and ESY Investments, LLC, a California limited liability company v. Tracy A. Westen 865 N.W.2d 325 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
“Jurisdiction of the subject matter means authority to hear and determine a particular class of actions and the particular questions which the court assumes to decide.” Robinette v. Price, 214 Minn. 521, 526
State of Minnesota, Respondent/Cross-Appellant v. Brian Keith Schnagl, a/k/a Brian Keith Schnagel, Appellant/Cross-Respondent. 859 N.W.2d 297 Minn. 2015
State of Minnesota, Respondent/Cross-Appellant v. Brian Keith Schnagl, a/k/a Brian Keith Schnagel, Appellant/Cross-Respondent. 859 N.W.2d 297 Minn. 2015
Put differently, subject matter jurisdiction refers to a court’s authority “ ‘to hear and determine a particular class of actions and the particular questions’ presented to the court for its decision.” Giersdorf v. A & M Constr., Inc., (quoting Robinette v. Price, 214 Minn. 521, 526, ); see also Seehus v. Bor-Son Constr., Inc.
State v. Vang 847 N.W.2d 248 Minn. 2014
State v. Vang 847 N.W.2d 248 Minn. 2014
-13 (Minn.2012); see also Robinette v. Price, 214 Minn. 521, 526
Soyka v. Commissioner of Revenue 842 N.W.2d 682 Minn. 2014
Giersdorf v. A & M Construction, Inc. 820 N.W.2d 16 Minn. 2012
Giersdorf v. A & M Construction, Inc. 820 N.W.2d 16 Minn. 2012
Robinette v. Price, 214 Minn. 521, 526
League of Women Voters Minnesota v. Ritchie 819 N.W.2d 636 Minn. 2012
League of Women Voters Minnesota v. Ritchie 819 N.W.2d 636 Minn. 2012
See Robinette v. Price, 214 Minn. 521, 526 , (describing our jurisdiction as the authority to “hear and determine a particular class of actions ” (emphasis added)).
In re the Appeal from the Final Order of the Board of Managers of the Bois De Sioux … 818 N.W.2d 583 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
In re the Appeal from the Final Order of the Board of Managers of the Bois De Sioux … 818 N.W.2d 583 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
Robinette v. Price, 214 Minn. 521, 526
Vang v. State 788 N.W.2d 111 Minn. 2010
Vang v. State 788 N.W.2d 111 Minn. 2010
See Robinette v. Price, 214 Minn. 521, 526
Seehus v. Bor-Son Construction, Inc. 783 N.W.2d 144 Minn. 2010
Seehus v. Bor-Son Construction, Inc. 783 N.W.2d 144 Minn. 2010
See Robinette V. Price, 214 Minn. 521, 526
In Re Rosckes v. County of Carver 783 N.W.2d 220 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
In Re Rosckes v. County of Carver 783 N.W.2d 220 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
Robinette v. Price, 214 Minn. 521, 526
Peterka v. Dennis 764 N.W.2d 829 Minn. 2009
Peterka v. Dennis 764 N.W.2d 829 Minn. 2009
n.1981) (prosecutors referred to as “ ‘quasi-judicial’ officials” because they “exercise a discretionary judgment”); Hoppe v. Klapperich, 224 Minn. 224, 240-41 , (in performing duties to a client, attorney is immune from suits by third parties so long as he acts as a quasi-judicial officer, determining his obligations to the public and to his client); Robinette v. Price, 214 Minn. 521, 533 , (duties of county welfare board involved “inquiry of fact and the exercise of judgment based on such inqu
In Re the Civil Commitment of Giem 742 N.W.2d 422 Minn. 2007
In Re the Civil Commitment of Giem 742 N.W.2d 422 Minn. 2007
4 See Robinette v. Price, 214 Minn. 521, 526 , (noting that subject matter jurisdiction refers to a court’s authority to hear and decide an issue in controversy).
Pahnke v. Anderson Moving and Storage 720 N.W.2d 875 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
Pahnke v. Anderson Moving and Storage 720 N.W.2d 875 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
Twenty-one years later, the supreme court declared that “[i]t is the imperative duty of a sheriff to execute the process and orders of a court of competent jurisdiction.” Robinette v. Price, 214 Minn. 521, 525
Bode v. Minnesota Department of Natural Resources 594 N.W.2d 257 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
Bode v. Minnesota Department of Natural Resources 594 N.W.2d 257 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
Early Minnesota cases describe subject-matter jurisdiction as “authority to hear and determine a particular class of actions and the particular questions which the court assumes to decide.” Robinette v. Price, 214 Minn. 521, 526 , (citing Reid, 200 Minn. 599 , 275 N.W.
Brown v. Dayton Hudson Corp. 314 N.W.2d 210 Minn. 1981
Brown v. Dayton Hudson Corp. 314 N.W.2d 210 Minn. 1981
In Robinette v. Price, 214 Minn. 521 , this court held that “[a] public officer whose functions are judicial or quasi-judicial is not liable to persons injured by the honest exercise of his judgment within his jurisdiction, however erroneous his judgment may be.” Id.
DePalma v. Rosen 199 N.W.2d 517 Minn. 1972
DePalma v. Rosen 199 N.W.2d 517 Minn. 1972
201 Minn. 622 , Robinette v. Price, 214 Minn. 521 , Johnson v. County of Steele, 240 Minn. 154 , McCorkell v. City of Northfield, 266 Minn. 267
In Re Application of County of Beltrami to Determine Settlement of Joyce 119 N.W.2d 25 Minn. 1963
In Re Application of County of Beltrami to Determine Settlement of Joyce 119 N.W.2d 25 Minn. 1963
22 § 261.09; Robinette v. Price, 214 Minn. 521 , 8 N. W. (2d) 800 .
Norris Grain Co. v. Seafarers' International Union of North America 46 N.W.2d 94 Minn. 1950
Norris Grain Co. v. Seafarers' International Union of North America 46 N.W.2d 94 Minn. 1950
Roberts v. Hense, 135 Minn. 99 , .” *97 In support of its contention, respondent relies upon Reid v. Independent Union of all Workers, 200 Minn. 599 , , 120 A. L. R. 297, and Robinette v. Price, 214 Minn. 521, 526 , 8 N. W. (2d) 800, 804 .
Harding v. Ohio Casualty Insurance 41 N.W.2d 818 Minn. 1950