Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Lustik v. Rankila, 131 N.W.2d 741.

36 citing documents.

Travelers Insurance Company v. Thompson 163 N.W.2d 289 Minn. 2008
Travelers Insurance Company v. Thompson 163 N.W.2d 289 Minn. 2008
Co. 268 Minn. 122 , 128 N. W. (2d) 151 ; Anderson v. Mikel Drilling Co. 257 Minn. 487 , 102 N. W. (2d) 293 ; Lustik v. Rankila, 269 Minn. 515 , 131 N. W. (2d) 741 .
Art Goebel, Inc. v. Array Construction Co. 437 N.W.2d 117 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Art Goebel, Inc. v. Array Construction Co. 437 N.W.2d 117 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
See Lustik v. Rankila, 269 Minn. 515, 519
Johnson v. Consolidated Freightways, Inc. 420 N.W.2d 608 Minn. 1988
Johnson v. Consolidated Freightways, Inc. 420 N.W.2d 608 Minn. 1988
See, e.g., Pacific Indemnity Co. v. Thompson-Yaeger, Inc., Lustik v. Rankila, 269 Minn. 515, 519-22 , 131 N.W.
Kaiser v. Northern States Power Co. 353 N.W.2d 899 Minn. 1984
Kaiser v. Northern States Power Co. 353 N.W.2d 899 Minn. 1984
For *903 these reasons, respondents argue, they have not had a “full and fair opportunity to be heard.” See Lustik v. Rankila, 269 Minn. 515, 521
Pacific Indemnity Co. v. Thompson-Yaeger, Inc. 260 N.W.2d 548 Minn. 1977
Pacific Indemnity Co. v. Thompson-Yaeger, Inc. 260 N.W.2d 548 Minn. 1977
Lustik v. Rankila, 269 Minn. 515
Price v. Amdal 256 N.W.2d 461 Minn. 1977
Winona National & Savings Bank v. Dahlen Transport Co. 256 N.W.2d 469 Minn. 1977
Price v. Amdal 256 N.W.2d 461 Minn. 1977
In our subsequent decision in Lustik v. Rankila, 269 Minn. 515 , we said “ * * * as long as Minn.St.
Winona National & Savings Bank v. Dahlen Transport Co. 256 N.W.2d 469 Minn. 1977
Lustik v. Rankila, 269 Minn. 515 , Lambach v. Northwest Refining Co., Inc., 261 Minn. 115
Goblirsch v. Western Land Roller Co. 246 N.W.2d 687 Minn. 1976
Goblirsch v. Western Land Roller Co. 246 N.W.2d 687 Minn. 1976
See, Lustik v. Rankila, 269 Minn. 515
Minn. State Bd. of Health v. City of Brainerd 241 N.W.2d 624 Minn. 1976
Minn. State Bd. of Health v. City of Brainerd 241 N.W.2d 624 Minn. 1976
This rule is based upon “considerations of public policy which demand an end to litigation where a party has had a full, free, and untrammeled opportunity to present facts pertinent to a decisive issue.” Lustik v. Rankila, 269 Minn. 515, 520
Margo-Kraft Distributors, Inc. v. Minneapolis Gas Co. 200 N.W.2d 45 Minn. 1972
Margo-Kraft Distributors, Inc. v. Minneapolis Gas Co. 200 N.W.2d 45 Minn. 1972
In Lustik v. Rankila, 269 Minn. 515, 520 , 50 Minn. L. Rev. 523 , we followed the opinion in Bernhard v. Bank of America, 19 Cal.
Ditzler v. Spee 180 N.W.2d 178 Minn. 1970
Ditzler v. Spee 180 N.W.2d 178 Minn. 1970
However, no case has come to our attention which turns on the peculiar circumstances created by our decision in Lustik v. Rankila, 269 Minn. 515 , 181 N. W. (2d) 741 .
Thill v. Modern Erecting Company 170 N.W.2d 865 Minn. 1969
Thill v. Modern Erecting Company 170 N.W.2d 865 Minn. 1969
Assn., 19 Cal.2d 807 , 122 P.2d 892 , as endorsed by Lustik v. Rankila, 269 Minn. 515 , .
Schwalich v. Guenther 166 N.W.2d 74 Minn. 1969
McCarty v. Budget Rent-A-Car 165 N.W.2d 548 Minn. 1969
McCarty v. Budget Rent-A-Car 165 N.W.2d 548 Minn. 1969
For the most part, plaintiff relies on our decision in Lustik v. Rankila, 269 Minn. 515 , 131 N. W. (2d) 741 .
Schwalich v. Guenther 166 N.W.2d 74 Minn. 1969
In this action the trial court granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment on the ground that, under the doctrine of Lustik v. Rankila, 269 Minn. 515 , 131 N. W. (2d) 741 , plaintiffs were estopped by the prior verdict in the death action from relitigating the issue of liability.
Spettigue v. Mahoney 445 P.2d 557 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1968
Jorgensen v. Hawton 161 N.W.2d 676 Minn. 1968
Jorgensen v. Hawton 161 N.W.2d 676 Minn. 1968
With respect to the negligence of Jorgensen, upon consolidation of the two actions for trial the Jorgensen trustee waived the presumption of due care, thus avoiding the problems raised in Lambach v. Northwestern Refining Co. Inc. 261 Minn. 115 , 111 N. W. (2d) 345 , and Lustik v. Rankila, 269 Minn. 515 , 131 N. W. (2d) 741 .
Jones v. Peterson 156 N.W.2d 733 Minn. 1968
Jones v. Peterson 156 N.W.2d 733 Minn. 1968
Although we recognize the force of this contention (see, Lambach v. Northwestern Refining Co. Inc. 261 Minn. 115 , 111 N. W. [2d] 345; Lott v. Davidson, 261 Minn. 130 , 109 N. W. [2d] 336; Lustik v. Rankila, 269 Minn. 515 , 131 N. W. [2d] 741), we believe it has no application where the negligence of the deceased driver appears as unequivocally as in this case.
Di Orio v. City of Scottsdale 408 P.2d 849 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1965
Howe v. Nelson 135 N.W.2d 687 Minn. 1965
Howe v. Nelson 135 N.W.2d 687 Minn. 1965
7 Lustik v. Rankila, 269 Minn. 515 , 131 N. W. (2d) 741 ; Wolfson v. Northern States Management Co. supra.