Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Haugland v. Canton, 84 N.W.2d 274.

30 citing documents.

Jerome E. Johnson, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2026
In making that determination, “‘the general result should be considered, and inquiry made as to who has, in the view of the law, succeeded in the action.’” ().
Craig Stevenson, et al., Appellants, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
In determining which party is the prevailing party, the district court is to consider the general result of the action and “who has, in the view of the law, succeeded in the action.” Haugland v. Canton, 7 (quotation omitted).
Stephen Sawyer, et al., Respondents, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
In making that determination, the court should consider the general result and “who has, in the view of the law, succeeded in the action.” Haugland v. Canton , (quotation omitted).
Mike Allen Homes, LLC, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2024
To determine the prevailing party, the district court considers “who has, in the view of the law, succeeded in the action.” ().
Dr. Wayne R. Freese, et al., Respondents, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
Servs., Inc. , , aff’d, (finding multiple prevailing parties); Haugland v. Canton , (finding one prevailing party).
Lauren Hamilton, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Servs., Inc., review granted in part (Minn. June 28, 2017), aff’d, (finding multiple prevailing parties); (finding one prevailing party).
Rush v. Jostock 710 N.W.2d 570 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
Rush v. Jostock 710 N.W.2d 570 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
at 840 (quoting Haugland v. Canton, 250 Minn. 245, 254 , ).
Benigni v. County of St. Louis 585 N.W.2d 51 Minn. 1998
Benigni v. County of St. Louis 585 N.W.2d 51 Minn. 1998
Haugland v. Canton, 250 Minn. 245, 254
Borchert v. Maloney 581 N.W.2d 838 Minn. 1998
Borchert v. Maloney 581 N.W.2d 838 Minn. 1998
Haugland v. Canton, 250 Minn. 245, 254 , (citation omitted).
TRIPLE B & G, INC. v. City of Fairmont 494 N.W.2d 49 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
TRIPLE B & G, INC. v. City of Fairmont 494 N.W.2d 49 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
See Haugland v. Canton, 250 Minn. 245, 248 , , 277 n. 7 (1957); Lewis, 123 Minn. at 411 , 143 N.W.
Hough v. Harvey 410 N.W.2d 53 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Hough v. Harvey 410 N.W.2d 53 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Haugland, v. Canton, 250 Minn. 245, 248 , Minar v. Skoog, 235 Minn. 262, 265
Reichert v. Union Fidelity Life Insurance Co. 360 N.W.2d 664 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Reichert v. Union Fidelity Life Insurance Co. 360 N.W.2d 664 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Although there are no Minnesota cases, a finding that Union Fidelity, by obtaining dismissal with prejudice, had succeeded in the action, see, Haugland v. Canton, 250 Minn. 245, 254 , would be within the trial court’s discretion.
Hodgin v. Ford Motor Co. 341 N.W.2d 567 Minn. 1983
Hodgin v. Ford Motor Co. 341 N.W.2d 567 Minn. 1983
He relies on the rule stated in Haugland v. Canton, 250 Minn. 245 , (taxation of disbursements in favor of prevailing party in district court).
Matter of Will of Gershcow 261 N.W.2d 335 Minn. 1977
Matter of Will of Gershcow 261 N.W.2d 335 Minn. 1977
Haugland v. Canton, 250 Minn. 245, 254
Nodland v. Chirpich 240 N.W.2d 513 Minn. 1976
Nodland v. Chirpich 240 N.W.2d 513 Minn. 1976
Haugland v. Canton, 250 Minn. 245, 251
Pesina Ex Rel. Pesina v. Juarez 181 N.W.2d 109 Minn. 1970
Pesina Ex Rel. Pesina v. Juarez 181 N.W.2d 109 Minn. 1970
See, Baker v. Polydisky, 144 Minn. 72 , ; Haugland v. Canton, 250 Minn. 245 , 84 N. W. (2d) 274 ; Thomas Peebles & Co. v. Sherman, 148 Minn. 282 , .
Weiss v. Great Northern Railway Company 176 N.W.2d 109 Minn. 1970
Weiss v. Great Northern Railway Company 176 N.W.2d 109 Minn. 1970
Haugland v. Canton, 250 Minn. 245 , 84 N. W. (2d) 274 .
Indianhead Truck Line, Inc. v. Hvidsten Transport, Inc. 128 N.W.2d 334 Minn. 1964
Indianhead Truck Line, Inc. v. Hvidsten Transport, Inc. 128 N.W.2d 334 Minn. 1964
We said in Haugland v. Canton, 250 Minn. 245, 253 , 84 N. W. (2d) 274 , 280: “* * * Clearly the complaint in the instant case was directed primarily toward equitable relief.