Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Northern States Power Co. v. Franklin, 122 N.W.2d 26.

199 citing documents.

In re Medtronic, Inc. Shareholder Litigation. Minn. Ct. App. 2016
1 provides that a complaint must “contain a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief and a demand for judgment for the relief sought.” A claim is sufficient to survive a motion to dismiss “if it is possible on any evidence which might be produced, consistent with the pleader’s theory, to grant the relief demanded.” N. States Power Co. v. Franklin, 265 Minn. 391, 395
Grace Louise Hollingsworth v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Grace Louise Hollingsworth v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
4 Graphic Commc’ns Local 1B Health & Welfare Fund A v. CVS Caremark Corp., (quoting N. States Power Co. v. Franklin, 265 Minn. 391, 395, ) (other citations omitted).
Steven Charles Lind v. William Guenther Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Steven Charles Lind v. William Guenther Minn. Ct. App. 2015
at 603; see also N. States Power Co. v. Franklin, 265 Minn. 391, 395, (stating that “a pleading will be dismissed only if it appears to a certainty that no facts, which could be introduced consistent with the pleading, exist which would support granting the relief demanded”).
20/20 Group, Inc. d/b/a Opportunities in Business v. Hydeaway II, LLC Minn. Ct. App. 2015
20/20 Group, Inc. d/b/a Opportunities in Business v. Hydeaway II, LLC Minn. Ct. App. 2015
at 602 (quoting Northern States Power Co. v. Franklin, 265 Minn. 391, 395, ).
Patrick Finn and Lighthouse Management Group, Inc., Appellants/Cross-Respondents v. Alliance Bank, Respondent/Cross-Appellant, Home Federal Bank, Respondent/Cross-Appellant, KleinBank, Respondent/Cross-Appellant, … 860 N.W.2d 638 Minn. 2015
Patrick Finn and Lighthouse Management Group, Inc., Appellants/Cross-Respondents v. Alliance Bank, Respondent/Cross-Appellant, Home Federal Bank, Respondent/Cross-Appellant, KleinBank, Respondent/Cross-Appellant, … 860 N.W.2d 638 Minn. 2015
A district court may only dismiss a complaint under Rule 12.02(e) if “it appears to a certainty that no facts, which could be introduced consistent with the pleading, exist which would support granting the relief demanded.” Walsh v. U.S. Bank, N.A., (quoting N. States Power Co. v. Franklin, 265 Minn. 391, 395, ).
Ronald Hagle v. The Bank of New York Mellon, as Trustee of the Benefit of CWMBS Inc., Ryan … Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Ronald Hagle v. The Bank of New York Mellon, as Trustee of the Benefit of CWMBS Inc., Ryan … Minn. Ct. App. 2015
See Walsh, d at 602; Northern States Power Co. v. Franklin, 265 Minn. 391, 394, Mitchell v. City of St.
Carroll A. Britton v. Harry Hohman Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Carroll A. Britton v. Harry Hohman Minn. Ct. App. 2014
“To state it another way, under this rule a pleading will be dismissed only if it appears to a certainty that no facts, which could be introduced consistent with the pleading, exist which would support granting the relief demanded.” N. States Power Co. v. Franklin, 265 Minn. 391, 395
Elfi E. Janssen v. Lommen, Abdo, Cole, King & Stageberg, P. A., Sibley Holdings, LLC Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Elfi E. Janssen v. Lommen, Abdo, Cole, King & Stageberg, P. A., Sibley Holdings, LLC Minn. Ct. App. 2014
The purpose of a pleading is “simply to give fair notice to the adverse party of the incident giving rise to the suit with sufficient clarity to disclose the pleader’s theory,” and a pleader is not “required to allege facts and every element of a cause of action.” N. States Power Co. v. Franklin, 265 Minn. 391, 394-95, see also Walsh, d at 605 (emphasizing that the purpose of the pleading is to notify the opposing party to the incident at issue).
James Ariola as next of kin and trustee for Jack Ariola Erenberg, his son v. The City of … Minn. Ct. App. 2014
James Ariola as next of kin and trustee for Jack Ariola Erenberg, his son v. The City of … Minn. Ct. App. 2014
at 602 (quoting N. States Power Co. v. Franklin, 265 Minn. 391, 395, ).
Laura L. Walsh v. U.S. Bank, N.A. 851 N.W.2d 598 Minn. 2014
Explained Laura L. Walsh v. U.S. Bank, N.A. 851 N.W.2d 598 Minn. 2014
In Northern States Power Co. v. Franklin, 265 Minn. 391 , we expanded on our understanding of the plain language of Rule 8.01.
Graphic Communications Local 1B Health & Welfare Fund "A", Respondents/Cross-Appellants v. CVS Caremark Corporation, Appellants/Cross-Respondents, Coborn's Incorporated, Appellant/Cross-Respondent, … 850 N.W.2d 682 Minn. 2014
Graphic Communications Local 1B Health & Welfare Fund "A", Respondents/Cross-Appellants v. CVS Caremark Corporation, Appellants/Cross-Respondents, Coborn's Incorporated, Appellant/Cross-Respondent, … 850 N.W.2d 682 Minn. 2014
A claim is sufficient to survive a motion to dismiss “if it is possible on any evidence which might be 16 produced, consistent with the pleader’s theory, to grant the relief demanded.” N. States Power Co. v. Franklin, 265 Minn. 391, 395
Abrahamson v. St. Louis County School District 819 N.W.2d 129 Minn. 2012
Abrahamson v. St. Louis County School District 819 N.W.2d 129 Minn. 2012
Co., -40 (Minn.2000) (noting that “we will not uphold a [Rule 12] dismissal ‘if it is possible on any evidence which might be produced, consistent with the pleader’s theory, to grant the relief demanded’ ” (emphasis added) (quoting N. States Power Co. v. Franklin, 265 Minn. 391, 395 , )).
Columbia Casualty Co. v. 3M Co. 814 N.W.2d 33 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
Columbia Casualty Co. v. 3M Co. 814 N.W.2d 33 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
N. States Power Co. v. Franklin, 265 Minn. 391, 395 , see Bahr, d at 80 (quoting Franklin, 265 Minn. at 395 , d at 29 ).
Bahr v. CAPELLA UNIVERSITY 788 N.W.2d 76 Minn. 2010
Bahr v. CAPELLA UNIVERSITY 788 N.W.2d 76 Minn. 2010
We have said that “a pleading will be dismissed only if it appears to a certainty that no facts, which could be introduced consistent with the pleading, exist which would support granting the relief demanded.” N. States Power Co. v. Franklin, 265 Minn. 391, 395
Hebert v. CITY OF FIFTY LAKES 784 N.W.2d 848 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
Hebert v. CITY OF FIFTY LAKES 784 N.W.2d 848 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
1(8) (2008) (six-year statute of limitations for permanent trespass on real property); N. States Power Co. v. Franklin, 265 Minn. 391, 397 , -31 (1963) (holding that, in the case of a continuing trespass, the statute of limitations does not run from the initial trespass).
Midwest Pipe Insulation, Inc. v. MD Mechanical, Inc. 771 N.W.2d 28 Minn. 2009
Midwest Pipe Insulation, Inc. v. MD Mechanical, Inc. 771 N.W.2d 28 Minn. 2009
N. States Power Co. v. Franklin, 265 Minn. 391, 395
Bahr v. Capella University 765 N.W.2d 428 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
Bahr v. Capella University 765 N.W.2d 428 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
“[A] pleading will be dismissed only if it appears to a certainty that no facts, which could be introduced consistent with the pleading, exist that would support granting the relief demanded.” N. States Power Co. v. Franklin, 265 Minn. 391, 395 , (footnote omitted).
Krueger v. Zeman Construction Co. 758 N.W.2d 881 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
Krueger v. Zeman Construction Co. 758 N.W.2d 881 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
“[A] pleading will be dismissed only if it appears to a certainty that no facts, which could be introduced consistent with the pleading, exist that would support granting the relief demanded.” N. States Power Co. v. Franklin, 265 Minn. 391, 395 , (footnote omitted).
Hebert v. City of Fifty Lakes 744 N.W.2d 226 Minn. 2008
Hebert v. City of Fifty Lakes 744 N.W.2d 226 Minn. 2008
The landowners rely on Northern States Power Co. v. Franklin, 265 Minn. 391 , to support their claim that the presence of the road on their property constitutes a continuing trespass and that the statute of limitations thus has not run.
Johnson v. Peterson 734 N.W.2d 275 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
Johnson v. Peterson 734 N.W.2d 275 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
Rule 12.02(e) permits dismissal on the basis of “failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.” This court “will not uphold a rule 12.02(e) dismissal ‘if it is possible on any evidence which might be produced, consistent with the pleader’s theory, to grant the relief demanded.’ ” (quoting N. States Power Co. v. Franklin, 265 Minn. 391, 395 , ).
Kelly v. Ellefson 712 N.W.2d 759 Minn. 2006
Kelly v. Ellefson 712 N.W.2d 759 Minn. 2006
that “[t]he functions of a pleading today are simply to give fair notice to the adverse party of the incident giving rise to the suit with sufficient clarity to disclose the pleader’s theory upon which his claim for relief is based, to permit the application of the doctrine of res judicata, and to determine whether the case must be tried by the jury or the court.” N. States Power Co. v. Franklin, 265 Minn. 391, 394 , (citing Roberge v. Cambridge Coop.
Wenigar v. Johnson 712 N.W.2d 190 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
Wenigar v. Johnson 712 N.W.2d 190 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
See Northern States Power Co. v. Franklin, 265 Minn. 391, 394 , -29 (1963) (trespass); State Dep’t of Labor Indus.
Radke v. County of Freeborn 694 N.W.2d 788 Minn. 2005
Radke v. County of Freeborn 694 N.W.2d 788 Minn. 2005
We will not uphold a Rule 12.02(e) dismissal “if it is possible on any evidence which might be produced, consistent with the pleader’s theory, to grant the relief demanded.” N. States Power Co. v. Franklin, 265 Minn. 391, 395
Antone v. Mirviss 694 N.W.2d 564 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
Antone v. Mirviss 694 N.W.2d 564 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
Co., -40 (Minn.2000) (quoting N. States Power Co. v. Franklin, 265 Minn. 391, 395 , ) (emphasis added).
Broehm v. Mayo Clinic Rochester 690 N.W.2d 721 Minn. 2005
Hauschildt v. Beckingham 686 N.W.2d 829 Minn. 2004
Hauschildt v. Beckingham 686 N.W.2d 829 Minn. 2004
Co., -40 (Minn.2000) (quoting Northern States Power Co. v. Franklin, 265 Minn. 391, 395 , ).