Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State Ex Rel. Foster v. Naftalin, 74 N.W.2d 249.

85 citing documents.

Dahlin v. Kroening 784 N.W.2d 406 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
Regardless of the wording in a judicial opinion, including its stated holding, a court’s expressions that “go beyond the facts before the court” are dicta and are deemed to be merely “the individual views of the author of the opinion and not binding in subsequent cases.” Foster v. Naftalin, 246 Minn. 181, 208
Russell's Americinn, LLC v. Eagle General Contractors, LLC 772 N.W.2d 81 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
Russell's Americinn, LLC v. Eagle General Contractors, LLC 772 N.W.2d 81 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
See State ex rel Foster v. Naftalin, 246 Minn. 181, 208 , (stating dicta is not binding in later cases).
MacRae v. Group Health Plan, Inc. 753 N.W.2d 711 Minn. 2008
MacRae v. Group Health Plan, Inc. 753 N.W.2d 711 Minn. 2008
Foster v. Naftalm, 246 Minn. 181, 208
State v. Timberlake 744 N.W.2d 390 Minn. 2008
State v. Timberlake 744 N.W.2d 390 Minn. 2008
Poster v. Naftalin, 246 Minn. 181, 208
State v. Ramey 721 N.W.2d 294 Minn. 2006
State v. Soukup 656 N.W.2d 424 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
State v. Soukup 656 N.W.2d 424 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
Foster v. Naftalin, 246 Minn. 181, 208
State v. KNAEBLE 652 N.W.2d 551 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
State v. KNAEBLE 652 N.W.2d 551 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
Foster v. Naftalin, 246 Minn. 181, 208-09 , (explaining when dictum in “a court’s opinion” is entitled to deference).
Zettler v. Ventura 649 N.W.2d 846 Minn. 2002
Marriage of Richter v. Richter 625 N.W.2d 490 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
Marriage of Richter v. Richter 625 N.W.2d 490 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
Foster v. Naftalin, 246 Minn. 181, 208 , (stating dicta “generally is considered to be expressions in a court’s opinion which go beyond the facts before the court and therefore are the individual views of the author of the opinion and not binding in subsequent cases.”).
Associated Builders & Contractors v. Ventura 610 N.W.2d 293 Minn. 2000
Associated Builders & Contractors v. Ventura 610 N.W.2d 293 Minn. 2000
Foster v. Naftalin, 246 Minn. 181, 200 , we observed that an entire law is unconstitutional generally in two instances: where its terms conflict with a constitutional provision, or where the method of enactment does not comply with constitutional requirements.
Arbitration Between Racine v. AMCO Insurance Co. 605 N.W.2d 773 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
Arbitration Between Racine v. AMCO Insurance Co. 605 N.W.2d 773 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
Foster v. Naftalin, 246 Minn. 181, 208 , (expressions in a court’s opinion that go beyond the facts before the court and therefore are the individual views of the author are not binding in subsequent cases).
K.R. v. Sanford 588 N.W.2d 545 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
K.R. v. Sanford 588 N.W.2d 545 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
Foster v. Naftalin, 246 Minn. 181, 208 , see also Kastigar v. United States, 406 U.S. 441, 444-45 , 92 S.Ct.
Giles v. Gageby 580 N.W.2d 52 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
Giles v. Gageby 580 N.W.2d 52 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
Foster v. Naftalin, 246 Minn. 181, 208 , (dicta “not binding in subsequent cases.”) DECISION A vendee’s action for specific performance of a contract for the sale and purchase of real estate is essentially in personam and transitory.
Pike v. Gunyou 488 N.W.2d 298 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
State v. Sanderson 469 N.W.2d 476 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
State v. Sanderson 469 N.W.2d 476 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
As the supreme court noted in State v. Naftalin, 246 Minn. 181 , : Before decisions of [the supreme] court should be overruled or ignored in subsequent cases, there should be some good reason for doing so.
State v. Hamm 423 N.W.2d 379 Minn. 1988
State v. Hamm 423 N.W.2d 379 Minn. 1988
State v. Naftalin, 246 Minn. 181, 210-11 , -68 (1956).
In Re State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. 392 N.W.2d 558 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
In Re State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. 392 N.W.2d 558 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Foster v. Naftalin, 246 Minn. 181, 186
Minneapolis Federation of Teachers, Local 59 v. Obermeyer 147 N.W.2d 358 Minn. 1966
Wandersee v. Brellenthin Chevrolet Co. 102 N.W.2d 514 Minn. 1960
Wandersee v. Brellenthin Chevrolet Co. 102 N.W.2d 514 Minn. 1960
Foster v. Naftalin, 246 Minn. 181, 208 , 74 N. W. (2d) 249, 266 , commenting on when expressions constitute obiter dicta, said: “ ‘Dicta,’ or more properly ‘obiter dicta,’ generally is considered to be expressions in a court’s opinion which go beyond the facts before the court and therefore are the individual views of the author of the opinion and not
Naftalin v. King 102 N.W.2d 301 Minn. 1960
Naftalin v. King 102 N.W.2d 301 Minn. 1960
Foster v. Naftalin, 246 Minn. 181, 210 , 74 N. W. (2d) 249, 267 , with respect to the rale of stare decisis we stated: * * it is true that stare decisis does not apply with the same strictness in some fields of law as in others.

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by