Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Johnson v. Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad, 66 N.W.2d 763.

55 citing documents.

Fidel Pizarro-Rios v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2025
Fidel Pizarro-Rios v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2025
[s]tare decisis is not an inflexible rule of law but rather a policy of the law.” (quoting Johnson v. Chicago, Burlington & Quincy R.R., ) (other citation omitted).
County of Hennepin Relator, vs. Hollydale Land LLC, Respondent Minn. 2025
County of Hennepin Relator, vs. Hollydale Land LLC, Respondent Minn. 2025
Assata Kenneh, Minn. 2020
Daniel v. City of Minneapolis 923 N.W.2d 637 Minn. 2019
Daniel v. City of Minneapolis 923 N.W.2d 637 Minn. 2019
Co. , 243 Minn. 58 , , 771 (1954) (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted).
State v. Harris 895 N.W.2d 592 Minn. 2017
James Ariola, as next of kin of, and trustee for, the Estate of Jack Ariola Erenberg, his son, … 889 N.W.2d 340 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
James Ariola, as next of kin of, and trustee for, the Estate of Jack Ariola Erenberg, his son, … 889 N.W.2d 340 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
“Stare decisis is not an inflexible rule of law but rather a policy of the law.” Johnson v. Chicago, Burlington & Quincy R.R., 243 Minn. 58, 68
Fair Isaac Corporation v. Michael Gordon, Callcredit Information Group Limited Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Fair Isaac Corporation v. Michael Gordon, Callcredit Information Group Limited Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Stare decisis, however, “is not an inflexible rule of law but rather a policy of the law.” Johnson v. Chicago, B. & Q. R.R., 243 Minn. 58, 68
State of Minnesota, ex rel., Branden Lee Pollard v. Tom Roy, Commissioner of Corrections 878 N.W.2d 341 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota, ex rel., Branden Lee Pollard v. Tom Roy, Commissioner of Corrections 878 N.W.2d 341 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. David Lee Haywood 869 N.W.2d 902 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. David Lee Haywood 869 N.W.2d 902 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Co., 243 Minn. 58, 69-70, (stating that the doctrine of stare decisis is a “guiding policy, not inflexible rule” and “is no shield for plain error”).
State v. Moua Her 750 N.W.2d 258 Minn. 2008
Illinois Farmers Insurance Co. v. Reed 647 N.W.2d 553 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
Illinois Farmers Insurance Co. v. Reed 647 N.W.2d 553 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
State v. Victorsen 627 N.W.2d 655 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
State v. Victorsen 627 N.W.2d 655 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
Oanes v. Allstate Insurance Co. 617 N.W.2d 401 Minn. 2000
Oanes v. Allstate Insurance Co. 617 N.W.2d 401 Minn. 2000
Goeb v. Tharaldson 615 N.W.2d 800 Minn. 2000
Goeb v. Tharaldson 615 N.W.2d 800 Minn. 2000
Ortiz Ex Rel. Ortiz v. Gavenda 590 N.W.2d 119 Minn. 1999
GME Consultants, Inc. v. Oak Grove Development, Inc. 515 N.W.2d 74 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
GME Consultants, Inc. v. Oak Grove Development, Inc. 515 N.W.2d 74 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
Although stare decisis is not an inflexible rule of law, departure from precedent is rare, especially in the field of property law “where rights may have become vested in rehance upon the decisions of this court.” Johnson v. Chicago, Burlington & Quincy RR, 243 Minn. 58, 68
Quintana v. Allstate Insurance Co. 378 N.W.2d 40 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Quintana v. Allstate Insurance Co. 378 N.W.2d 40 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
The forum non conveniens rule is “an equitable rule based on the proposition that *43 a court in its discretion may decline to exercise jurisdiction over a transitory cause of action when it appears that the action may more equitably be tried in some other available and competent court.” Johnson v. Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad Co., 243 Minn. 58, 62 , (footnote omitted).
Pauli v. Pneumatic Systems, Inc. 328 N.W.2d 743 Minn. 1983
Hague v. Allstate Insurance Co. 289 N.W.2d 43 Minn. 1979
Hague v. Allstate Insurance Co. 289 N.W.2d 43 Minn. 1979
Johnson v. *46 Chicago, B. & Q. Railroad Co., 243 Minn. 58
Wasche v. Wasche 268 N.W.2d 721 Minn. 1978
Wasche v. Wasche 268 N.W.2d 721 Minn. 1978
§ 1404 (a), which reads as follows: “For the convenience of parties and witnesses, in the interest of justice, a district court may transfer any civil action to any other district or division where it might have been brought.” In Johnson v. Chicago, B. & Q. Railroad Co., 243 Minn. 58 , this court, speaking through Mr. Justice Knut-son, construed § 1404(a) as an adoption of the rule of forum non conveniens for Federal court actions and held that the same procedure should be followed when F.E.
Toetschinger v. Ihnot 250 N.W.2d 204 Minn. 1977
Savchuk v. Randal Rush 245 N.W.2d 624 Minn. 1976
Hardrives, Inc. v. City of LaCrosse, Wis. 240 N.W.2d 814 Minn. 1976
Hardrives, Inc. v. City of LaCrosse, Wis. 240 N.W.2d 814 Minn. 1976
Co. 291 Minn. 509, 511 , quoting Johnson v. Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co. 243 Minn. 58, 79 , : «* * * The district courts of this state may fairly exercise their discretion in declining to accept jurisdiction of transitory causes of action brought here by citizens or noncitizens of this state who are nonresident when it fairly appears that it would be more equitable that the c
Willoughby v. Hawkeye-Security Insurance Co. 189 N.W.2d 165 Minn. 1971
Willoughby v. Hawkeye-Security Insurance Co. 189 N.W.2d 165 Minn. 1971
In Johnson v. Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co. 243 Minn. 58, 79 , 66 N. W. (2d) 763, 776 , we stated: “* * * The district courts of this state may fairly exercise their discretion in declining to accept jurisdiction of transitory causes of action brought here by citizens or noncitizens of this state who are nonresident when it fairly appears that it would be more equitable tha
Fourth Northwestern National Bank v. Hilson Industries, Inc. 117 N.W.2d 732 Minn. 1962
Fourth Northwestern National Bank v. Hilson Industries, Inc. 117 N.W.2d 732 Minn. 1962
g case we recognized its effect on § 303.13 in this manner ( 259 Minn. 335 , 107 N. W. [2d] 384): “* * * The reasonableness of subjecting the defendant to jurisdiction under this rule may be tested by the standards analogous to those of forum non conveniens.” Speaking through Mr. Justice Knutson, we exhaustively considered the rule of forum non conveniens in Johnson v. Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co. 243 Minn. 58 , 66 N. W. (2d) 763 , and came to the conclusion that important considerations of pohcy
Hill v. Upper Mississippi Towing Corp. 89 N.W.2d 654 Minn. 1958
Hill v. Upper Mississippi Towing Corp. 89 N.W.2d 654 Minn. 1958
Johnson v. Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co. 243 Minn. 58 , 66 N. W. (2d) 763 ; Ramsey v. Chicago G. W. Ry.
Maynard v. Chicago & North Western Railway Co. 77 N.W.2d 183 Minn. 1956
Ramsey v. CHICAGO GREAT WESTERN RAILWAY CO. 77 N.W.2d 176 Minn. 1956
Maynard v. Chicago & North Western Railway Co. 77 N.W.2d 183 Minn. 1956
The plaintiff is here to test the application of forum non conveniens as established in 1954 in Johnson v. Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co. 243 Minn. 58 , 66 N. W. (2d) 763 , to an action arising in a border state.
State v. EAH 75 N.W.2d 195 Minn. 1956
State v. E. A. H. 75 N.W.2d 195 Minn. 1956

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by