Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Youngstown Mines Corp. v. Prout, 124 N.W.2d 328.

88 citing documents.

Alex Lancaster, Relator v. Department of Human Services Minn. 2025
Alex Lancaster, Relator v. Department of Human Services Minn. 2025
v. Knutson, () (internal quotation marks omitted).
Guardian Energy, LLC v. Cnty. of Waseca 927 N.W.2d 1 Minn. 2019
Guardian Energy, LLC v. Cnty. of Waseca 927 N.W.2d 1 Minn. 2019
" Schober v. Comm'r of Revenue , , 108 (Minn. 2013) (quoting Youngstown Mines Corp. v. Prout , 266 Minn. 450 , , 351 (1963) ).
In re: Rental License Revocation Appeal for Stephen Frenz for properties owned by Equity Residential Holdings, LLC, National … Minn. Ct. App. 2019
See Youngstown Mines 13 (“Th e test of the right to certior ari, so far as parties are concerned, is whethe r the person seeking the writ w as a party in form or in substance so as to be concluded by the determination of the matters in controversy.”).
Schober v. Commissioner of Revenue 853 N.W.2d 102 Minn. 2013
Schober v. Commissioner of Revenue 853 N.W.2d 102 Minn. 2013
Youngstown Mines Corp. v. Front, 266 Minn. 450, 484
County of Washington v. City of Oak Park Heights 818 N.W.2d 533 Minn. 2012
County of Washington v. City of Oak Park Heights 818 N.W.2d 533 Minn. 2012
and Youngstown Mines Corp. v. Prout, 266 Minn. 450 , supports rejection of the proprietary-governmental distinction in determining the proper method to review municipal decisions.
Beuning Family LP v. County of Stearns 817 N.W.2d 122 Minn. 2012
Beuning Family LP v. County of Stearns 817 N.W.2d 122 Minn. 2012
Whether or not the tax court properly entered judgment on its order, we have observed that a writ of certiorari, “being in the nature of an appeal, is designed to bring up for review the final determination of an inferior tribunal which, if unreversed, would constitute a final adjudication of some legal rights of the relator.” Youngstown Mines Corp. v. Prout, 266 Minn. 450, 484 , see Port of Boston Marine Terminal Ass’n v. Rederiaktiebolaget Transatlantic, 400 U.S. 62, 71 , 91 S.Ct.
County of Washington v. City of Oak Park Heights 802 N.W.2d 767 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
County of Washington v. City of Oak Park Heights 802 N.W.2d 767 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
at 159 (framing the issue as whether the city’s operation of a waterworks was “a governmental function” or the city acting as a “private or corporate” entity); Youngstown Mines Corp. v. Prout, 266 Minn. 450, 473 , (stating that “when [the state] descends to the level of those with whom it associates and interests itself in any property and proprietary rights as distinguished from governmental prerogatives, it subjects itself to the same liability as any other litigant”).
Rucker v. Schmidt 794 N.W.2d 114 Minn. 2011
Brown-Wilbert, Inc. v. Copeland Buhl & Co. 732 N.W.2d 209 Minn. 2007
Brown-Wilbert, Inc. v. Copeland Buhl & Co. 732 N.W.2d 209 Minn. 2007
into more than one lawsuit and precludes further litigation of the same claim.”); -08 (Minn.1978) (analyzing the defense of claim splitting under the doctrine of res judicata but declining to apply res judicata to claims that could not have been brought in the first action because of the limited jurisdiction of county courts); Youngstown Mines Corp. v. Prout, 266 Minn. 450, 466 , (stating that a second action was barred after judgment was entered in the first action).
Hauschildt v. Beckingham 686 N.W.2d 829 Minn. 2004
Hauschildt v. Beckingham 686 N.W.2d 829 Minn. 2004
In Youngstown Mines Corp. v. Prowt, 266 Minn. 450, 466 , (quoting Veline v. Dahlquist, 64 Minn. 119, 121 , 66 N.W.
Nelson v. American Family Insurance Group 651 N.W.2d 499 Minn. 2002
Nelson v. American Family Insurance Group 651 N.W.2d 499 Minn. 2002
Harvestore Prods., Inc., and Youngstown Mines Corp. v. Proud, 266 Minn. 450, 466
Wilson v. Commissioner of Revenue 619 N.W.2d 194 Minn. 2000
Wilson v. Commissioner of Revenue 619 N.W.2d 194 Minn. 2000
Smith Harvestore Prods., Inc., Youngstown Mines Corp. v. Prout, 266 Minn. 450, 466
Webb Business Promotions, Inc. v. American Electronics & Entertainment Corp. 617 N.W.2d 67 Minn. 2000
Webb Business Promotions, Inc. v. American Electronics & Entertainment Corp. 617 N.W.2d 67 Minn. 2000
See Roaderick, 296 Minn, at 389, d at 764 ; Weed, d at 288 ; see also Youngstown Mines Corp. v. Prout, 266 Minn. 450, 463 , (“In order for an accord and satisfaction to exist, there must be an honest dispute between the parties, [and] a tender with the explicit understanding of both parties that it was in full payment of all demands * * (emphasis added)).
Care Institute, Inc.-Roseville v. County of Ramsey 612 N.W.2d 443 Minn. 2000
Care Institute, Inc.-Roseville v. County of Ramsey 612 N.W.2d 443 Minn. 2000
See Youngstown Mines Corp. v. Prout, 266 Minn. 450, 466
Paulos v. Johnson 597 N.W.2d 316 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
Paulos v. Johnson 597 N.W.2d 316 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
Smith Harvestore Prods., Inc., (citing Youngstown Mines Corp. v. Prout, 266 Minn. 450, 466 , ); (noting res judicata bars new grounds for relief based upon same cause of action even if not presented in first case), review denied (Minn. Feb.
In Re the Trusts: Created by Hormel 543 N.W.2d 668 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
In Re the Trusts: Created by Hormel 543 N.W.2d 668 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
Youngstown Mines Corp. v. Prout, 266 Minn. 450, 466 , Minneapolis Auto Parts Co. v. City of Minneapolis, 739 F.2d 408, 409 (8th *672 Cir.1984).
Beck v. American Sharecom, Inc. 514 N.W.2d 584 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
Beck v. American Sharecom, Inc. 514 N.W.2d 584 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
(quoting Youngstown Mines Corp. v. Prout, 266 Minn. 450, 466 , ).
Porta-Mix Concrete, Inc. v. First Insurance East Grand Forks 512 N.W.2d 119 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
Porta-Mix Concrete, Inc. v. First Insurance East Grand Forks 512 N.W.2d 119 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
(quoting The Youngstown Mines Corp. v. Prout, 266 Minn. 450, 466 , ).
Harford v. University of Minnesota 494 N.W.2d 903 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
Harford v. University of Minnesota 494 N.W.2d 903 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
“A judgment on the merits constitutes an absolute bar to a second suit for the same cause of action, and is conclusive between parties and privies, not only as to every matter which was actually litigated, but also as to every matter which might have been litigated therein.” (quoting The Youngstown Mines Corp. v. Prout, 266 Minn. 450, 466 , ) (emphasis added).
Demers v. City of Minneapolis 486 N.W.2d 828 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
Demers v. City of Minneapolis 486 N.W.2d 828 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
(quoting The Youngstown Mines Corp. v. Prout, 266 Minn. 450, 466 , ).
Buchanan v. Dain Bosworth Inc. 469 N.W.2d 508 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
Buchanan v. Dain Bosworth Inc. 469 N.W.2d 508 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
Youngstown Mines Corp. v. Prout, 266 Minn. 450, 466
Myers Through Myers v. Price 463 N.W.2d 773 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
Myers Through Myers v. Price 463 N.W.2d 773 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
(quoting The Youngstown Mines Corp. v. Prout, 266 Minn. 450, 466 , ).
Nitz v. Nitz 456 N.W.2d 450 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
Nitz v. Nitz 456 N.W.2d 450 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
(quoting The Youngstown Mines Corp. v. Prout, 266 Minn. 450, 466 , ) (emphasis deleted).
Dokmo v. Independent School District No. 11 443 N.W.2d 231 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Dokmo v. Independent School District No. 11 443 N.W.2d 231 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Writs of certiorari are designed to review the final determinations of “inferior tribunals.” Youngstown Mines Corporation v. Prout, 266 Minn. 450, 482
In Re the Occupational License of Haymes 444 N.W.2d 257 Minn. 1989
In Re the Occupational License of Haymes 444 N.W.2d 257 Minn. 1989
See Youngstown Mines Corp. v. Prout, 266 Minn. 450, 481 , (to seek certiorari one must be a party in form or substance); In re Acquisition of Flying Cloud Airport, 226 Minn. 272, 278 , (an actor who participates as an active contestant on the merits and is specially bound and affected by the outcome of the proceedin
Johnson v. Hunter 435 N.W.2d 821 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Johnson v. Hunter 435 N.W.2d 821 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Youngstown Mines Corp. v. Prout, 266 Minn. 450, 466 , (quoting Veline v. Dahlquist, 64 Minn. 119, 121 , 66 N.W.

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by