Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite House v. Hanson, 72 N.W.2d 874.

61 citing documents.

Birkholz & Associates, LLC., Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2026
In the Matter of the Welfare of: D.J.F.-D., Child Minn. 2024
In the Matter of the Welfare of: D.J.F.-D., Child Minn. 2024
See Walsh v. U.S. Bank, N.A., 15 (Minn. 2014) (recognizing that a rule’s unambiguous plain language is controlling, but that “its purpose and history, and its procedural context,” are also relevant to its interpretation); (“The words of a court rule, like those of a statute, must be taken and construed in the sense in which they were understood and intended at the time the rule was promulgated.”).
Ferdinand Leo Gams, Jr., Respondent/Cross-Appellant v. Steven Ronald Houghton, Appellant/Cross-Respondent. 884 N.W.2d 611 Minn. 2016
Followed Ferdinand Leo Gams, Jr., Respondent/Cross-Appellant v. Steven Ronald Houghton, Appellant/Cross-Respondent. 884 N.W.2d 611 Minn. 2016
Co., (quoting House v. Hanson, 245 Minn. 466, 473, ).
Frisch v. State 840 N.W.2d 426 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
Frisch v. State 840 N.W.2d 426 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
Co., (quoting House v. Hanson, 245 Minn. 466, 473 , ).
In re M.O. 838 N.W.2d 577 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
In re M.O. 838 N.W.2d 577 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
Co., House v. Hanson, 245 Minn. 466, 473
Eclipse Architectural Group, Inc. v. Lam 814 N.W.2d 692 Minn. 2012
Eclipse Architectural Group, Inc. v. Lam 814 N.W.2d 692 Minn. 2012
P. 4.02 is applicable to service of a mechanic’s lien statement “we first look to the plain language of the rule and its purpose.” see also House v. Hanson, 245 Minn. 466, 473 , (“The words of a court rule, like those of a statute, must be taken and construed in the sense in which they were understood and intended at the time the rule was promulgated.”).
Kern v. Janson 800 N.W.2d 126 Minn. 2011
Kern v. Janson 800 N.W.2d 126 Minn. 2011
See House v. Hanson, 245 Minn. 466 , ("We hold therefore that the word ‘transaction’ as used in Rule 13.01 does not embrace claims in tort and that therefore the failure of a defendant to assert as a counterclaim any claim he has against the plaintiff does not estop him from asserting such claim in an independent action agains
County of Washington v. TMT Land V, LLC 791 N.W.2d 132 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
County of Washington v. TMT Land V, LLC 791 N.W.2d 132 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
(quoting House v. Hanson, 245 Minn. 466, 473 , ).
SHAMROCK DEVELOPMENT, INC. v. Smith 754 N.W.2d 377 Minn. 2008
SHAMROCK DEVELOPMENT, INC. v. Smith 754 N.W.2d 377 Minn. 2008
“The words of a court rule, like those of a statute, must be taken and construed in the sense in which they were understood and intended at the time the rule was promulgated.” House v. Hanson, 245 Minn. 466, 473
Leiendecker v. Asian Women United of Minnesota 731 N.W.2d 836 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
Leiendecker v. Asian Women United of Minnesota 731 N.W.2d 836 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
See House v. Hanson, 245 Minn. 466, 472-73 , (citing Minn. R. Civ.
Vandenheuvel v. Wagner 690 N.W.2d 753 Minn. 2005
Vandenheuvel v. Wagner 690 N.W.2d 753 Minn. 2005
While very few of our cases address the principles of rule construction, we said in House v. Hanson that: “the words of a court rule, like those of a statute, must be taken and construed in the sense in which they were understood and intended at the time the rule was promulgated.” 1 245 Minn. 466, 473
Marriage of Mingen v. Mingen 679 N.W.2d 724 Minn. 2004
Marriage of Mingen v. Mingen 679 N.W.2d 724 Minn. 2004
See House v. Hanson, 245 Minn. 466, 473 , (“The words of a court rule, like those of a statute, must be taken and construed in the sense in which they were understood and intended at the time the rule was promulgated.
Vandenheuvel v. Wagner 673 N.W.2d 524 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
Vandenheuvel v. Wagner 673 N.W.2d 524 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
Co., *526 (quoting House v. Hanson, 245 Minn. 466, 473 , ).
Nguyen v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. 558 N.W.2d 487 Minn. 1997
Nguyen v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. 558 N.W.2d 487 Minn. 1997
“The words of a court rule, like those of a statute, must be taken and construed in the sense in which they were understood and intended at the time the rule was promulgated.” House v. Hanson, 245 Minn. 466, 473
Stoebe v. Merastar Insurance Co. 541 N.W.2d 600 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
Stoebe v. Merastar Insurance Co. 541 N.W.2d 600 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
(when words in statute are clear and unambiguous, court must give effect to plain meaning of language); House v. Hanson, 245 Minn. 466, 473 , (applying rule of statutory construction when construing civil procedure rule).
Cochrane v. Tudor Oaks Condominium Project 529 N.W.2d 429 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
Cochrane v. Tudor Oaks Condominium Project 529 N.W.2d 429 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
House v. Hanson , 245 Minn. 466 , 468 , , 875 (Minn. 1955).
Larson v. Independent School District No. 314 233 N.W.2d 744 Minn. 1975
Larson v. Independent School District No. 314 233 N.W.2d 744 Minn. 1975
See, House v. Hanson, 245 Minn. 466
In Re Estate of Bush 224 N.W.2d 489 Minn. 1974
Lee v. Arrowood 224 N.W.2d 489 Minn. 1974
Lee v. Arrowood 224 N.W.2d 489 Minn. 1974
To construe the statute involved as permitting a motion for judgment on the pleadings while forbidding a motion for summary judgment where there are no fact issues to be tried would simply be reviving the technicalities which the Rules of Civil Procedure seek to avoid and which were condemned by this court in House v. Hanson, 245 Minn. 466
In Re Estate of Bush 224 N.W.2d 489 Minn. 1974
To construe the statute involved as permitting a motion for judgment on the pleadings while forbidding a motion for summary judgment where there are no fact issues to be tried would simply be reviving the technicalities which the Rules of Civil Procedure seek to avoid and which were condemned by this court in House v. Hanson, 245 Minn. 466
Margo-Kraft Distributors, Inc. v. Minneapolis Gas Co. 200 N.W.2d 45 Minn. 1972
Margo-Kraft Distributors, Inc. v. Minneapolis Gas Co. 200 N.W.2d 45 Minn. 1972
It was not, as we held in House v. Hanson, 245 Minn. 466 , required to plead a counterclaim against defendants under the compulsory counterclaims provisions of Rule 13.01, Rules of Civil Procedure.
Pierce v. Foley Bros., Inc. 168 N.W.2d 346 Minn. 1969
Pierce v. Foley Bros., Inc. 168 N.W.2d 346 Minn. 1969
Following the adoption of the Rules of Civil Procedure, the first appeal from an order denying summary judgment and certifying the question involved as important and doubtful was House v. Hanson, 245 Minn. 466 , 72 N. W. (2d) 874 (1955).
Rowan v. K. W. McKee, Inc. 114 N.W.2d 692 Minn. 1962
Rowan v. K. W. McKee, Inc. 114 N.W.2d 692 Minn. 1962
House v. Hanson, 245 Minn. 466 , 72 N. W. *368 (2d) 874; In re Estate and Guardianships of Williams, 254 Minn. 272 , 95 N. W. (2d) 91 .
Village of Roseville v. Sunset Memorial Park Assn. Inc. 113 N.W.2d 857 Minn. 1962
Village of Roseville v. Sunset Memorial Park Assn. Inc. 113 N.W.2d 857 Minn. 1962
1 House v. Hanson, 245 Minn. 466 , 72 N. W. (2d) 874 ; In re Estate and Guardianships of Williams, 254 Minn. 272 , 95 N. W. (2d) 91 ; Stevens v. Lycan & Co. 259 Minn. 106 , 105 N. W. (2d) 889 ; Shumway v. Nelson, 259 Minn. 319 , 107 N. W. (2d) 531 .
Hill v. Stokely-Van Camp, Inc. 109 N.W.2d 749 Minn. 1961
Hill v. Stokely-Van Camp, Inc. 109 N.W.2d 749 Minn. 1961
1 House v. Hanson, 245 Minn. 466 , 72 N. W. (2d) 874 .
Shumway v. Nelson 107 N.W.2d 531 Minn. 1961
Shumway v. Nelson 107 N.W.2d 531 Minn. 1961
House v. Hanson, 245 Minn. 466 , 72 N. W. (2d) 874 .
Stevens v. Lycan & Co. 105 N.W.2d 889 Minn. 1960