Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Doerr v. Warner, 76 N.W.2d 505.

55 citing documents.

John Puetz, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
Steven Craig Redick, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
(“[A] civil action is commenced, and the court thereby acquires jurisdiction, when personal service upon the defendant is actually made as prescribed by statute or rule.”).
Mark Lehnertz, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2024
Marlene Fearing, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
Roger Dean Olson, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
Andres Lugo, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
P. 3.01(a), (b); (“As a general rule a civil action is commenced, and the court thereby acquires jurisdiction, when personal service upon the defendant is actually made as prescribed by statute or rule.”); (relying on Doerr, d at 511 and rule 3.01 when s
Lavonia M. Bell, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
In the Matter of V & J Farm, LLC and the Commissioner of North Fork Crow River Watershed … Minn. Ct. App. 2022
34, 339 (Minn. 2019) (observing that in Skyline, the court “said that ‘statu tory provisions for service of notice must be strictly followed in order for a court to acquire jurisdiction,’ and held that a party must follow the service requirements of Rule 4.03 to perfect an appeal under Minnesota Statutes section 394.27 (2018)” (quoting Skyline, d at 477)); see also Doerr v. Warner , (“As a general rule a civil action is commenced, and the court thereby acquires jurisdiction, when pe rsonal servi
John Schulz, et al., Minn. 2019
Kelbro Company, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Id.; (“As a general rule a civil action is commenced, and the court thereby acquires jurisdiction, when personal service upon the defendant is actually made as prescribed by statute or rule.”).
Maria Vlachou-Hahn, et al., Plaintiffs, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
See Doerr v. Warner , 247 Minn. 98, 107–10, –14 (1956) (affirming injunction in a trust case where trustee moved the trust res from Minnesota to Nevada to deprive the Minnesota court of jurisdiction).
Pamela Maslowski v. Prospect Funding Partners LLC, Prospect Funding Holdings LLC 890 N.W.2d 756 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Pamela Maslowski v. Prospect Funding Partners LLC, Prospect Funding Holdings LLC 890 N.W.2d 756 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
See, e.g., Doerr v. Warner, 247 Minn. 98, 109-10, (upholding anti-suit injunction partly because trustee acted in “calculated and systematic” manner to deprive Minnesota court of jurisdiction and because Minnesota court was first to acquire jurisdiction).
In re Application of Skyline Materials, Ltd. 835 N.W.2d 472 Minn. 2013
In re Application of Skyline Materials, Ltd. 835 N.W.2d 472 Minn. 2013
ion and requiring the defendant to appear and answer.’ ” Eclipse Architectural Grp., (alteration in original) (emphasis added) (quoting Black’s Law Dictionary 1574 (9th ed.2009)); (concluding that an appeal in an assessment proceeding initiates a civil action); Doerr v. Warner, 247 Minn. 98, 103 , (“As a general rule a civil action is commenced ...
Save Our Creeks v. City of Brooklyn Park 682 N.W.2d 639 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
Save Our Creeks v. City of Brooklyn Park 682 N.W.2d 639 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
See Doerr v. Warner, 247 Minn. 98 , (holding that failure to -join an indispensable party is not a jurisdictional defect).
Wick v. Wick 670 N.W.2d 599 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
Wick v. Wick 670 N.W.2d 599 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
See Doerr v. Warner, 247 Minn. 98, 103 , Moore, supra, § 108.01[2][c], Due process requires that a defendant receive notice of a civil action and an opportunity to be heard.
Medtronic, Inc. v. Advanced Bionics Corp. 630 N.W.2d 438 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
Medtronic, Inc. v. Advanced Bionics Corp. 630 N.W.2d 438 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
Doerr v. Warner, 247 Minn. 98, 109
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
See, e.g., Doerr v. Warner, 247 Minn. 98, 103-04 , (footnote omitted); see also State Auto.
In Re the Trusteeship Created by the Sheridan 593 N.W.2d 702 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
In Re the Trusteeship Created by the Sheridan 593 N.W.2d 702 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
-31 (Minn.1985); Doerr v. Warner, 247 Minn. 98, 107 , see George Gleason Bogert & George Taylor Bogert, The Law of Trusts and Trustees § 291, at 222-32 (rev.2d ed.1992) (discussing problems and general principles regarding multi-state trusts).
Schwartz v. Arizona Primary Care Physicians 964 P.2d 491 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
In Re the Arbitration Between Hunter, Keith Industries, Inc. v. Piper Capital Management Inc. 575 N.W.2d 850 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
In Re the Arbitration Between Hunter, Keith Industries, Inc. v. Piper Capital Management Inc. 575 N.W.2d 850 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
Doerr v. Warner, 247 Minn. 98, 105-06
First State Insurance Co. v. Minnesota Mining & Manufacturing Co. 535 N.W.2d 684 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
First State Insurance Co. v. Minnesota Mining & Manufacturing Co. 535 N.W.2d 684 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
1096, 1096 (1913); Doerr v. Warner, 247 Minn. 98, 108 , cert.
St. Paul Surplus Lines Insurance Co. v. Mentor Corp. 503 N.W.2d 511 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
Distinguished St. Paul Surplus Lines Insurance Co. v. Mentor Corp. 503 N.W.2d 511 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
For this reason, Doerr v. Warner, 247 Minn. 98 , is distinguishable.
Minnesota Mutual Life Insurance v. Anderson 410 N.W.2d 80 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Minnesota Mutual Life Insurance v. Anderson 410 N.W.2d 80 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Doerr v. Warner, 247 Minn. 98, 108 , , cert.
Matter of Florance 360 N.W.2d 626 Minn. 1985
Matter of Florance 360 N.W.2d 626 Minn. 1985
See Doerr v. Warner, 247 Minn. 98, 107 , (one factor in Minnesota retaining jurisdiction over a trust was that the trust instrument provided that the Minnesota court was to appoint successor trustees and that Minnesota law was to govern the trustees).
Zions First National Bank v. World of Fitness, Inc. 280 N.W.2d 22 Minn. 1979
Zions First National Bank v. World of Fitness, Inc. 280 N.W.2d 22 Minn. 1979
In Doerr v. Warner, 247 Minn. 98 , , appeal dismissed, 352 U.S. 801 , 77 S.Ct.
Vyskocil v. Vyskocil 277 N.W.2d 664 Minn. 1979
Vyskocil v. Vyskocil 277 N.W.2d 664 Minn. 1979
Glasier v. Glasier, 272 Minn. 62, 71 , Doerr v. Warner, 247 Minn. 98, 110
State Automobile & Casualty Underwriters v. Lee 257 N.W.2d 573 Minn. 1977
State Automobile & Casualty Underwriters v. Lee 257 N.W.2d 573 Minn. 1977
See, Doerr v. Warner, 247 Minn. 98 , , certiorari denied, 352 U.S. 801 , 77 S.Ct.
In Re Trusts Created by Hormel 163 N.W.2d 844 Minn. 1968
In Re Trusts Created by Hormel 163 N.W.2d 844 Minn. 1968
Goncelier v. Foret, 4 Minn. 1 (13); Clark v. Stanton, 24 Minn. 232, 244 ; Doerr v. Warner, 247 Minn. 98, 109 , 76 N. W. (2d) 505, 514 .
State Ex Rel. Glasier v. Glasier 137 N.W.2d 549 Minn. 1965
State Ex Rel. Glasier v. Glasier 137 N.W.2d 549 Minn. 1965
The courts of one state may determine that the other state has a more substantial interest in the child and leave the matter to be settled there.” This court in Doerr v. Warner, 247 Minn. 98, 110 , 76 N. W. (2d) 505, 514 , stressed the function of comity as follows: “* * * Since the Minnesota court first acquired jurisdiction, and at a time when the trust res was located in this state, it follows as a matter of *72 well-recognized comity that such jurisdiction takes precedence and is a bar to th
Danov v. ABC Freight Forwarding Corp. 122 N.W.2d 776 Minn. 1963
In Re Trust Created by Warner 117 N.W.2d 224 Minn. 1962
In Re Trust Created by Warner 117 N.W.2d 224 Minn. 1962
Some of the facts relating to this trust may be found in our decision in Doerr v. Warner, 247 Minn. 98 , 76 N. W. (2d) 505 .
Warner v. Warner 110 N.W.2d 100 Minn. 1961