Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Howe v. Nelson, 135 N.W.2d 687.

35 citing documents.

Haugen Nutrition & Equipment, LLC v. United Prairie Bank of Mountain Lake Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Haugen Nutrition & Equipment, LLC v. United Prairie Bank of Mountain Lake Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Res judicata “operates as an absolute bar to a subsequent suit on the same cause of action, concluding the parties and their privies not only as to every matter that was litigated but also as to any other claim or defense which might have been litigated.” Howe v. Nelson, 271 Minn. 296, 301, (emphasis added); see Mower Cnty.
State v. Joseph 636 N.W.2d 322 Minn. 2001
State v. Joseph 636 N.W.2d 322 Minn. 2001
In Howe v. Nelson, 271 Minn. 296 , we recognized that, if an earlier declaratory judgment is to have a preclu-sive effect in a subsequent garnishment proceeding, the application of res judicata is preferable to the application of collateral estoppel.
Mower County Human Services Ex Rel. Garcia v. Graves 611 N.W.2d 386 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
Mower County Human Services Ex Rel. Garcia v. Graves 611 N.W.2d 386 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
Howe v. Nelson, 271 Minn. 296, 301
Rw v. Tf 510 N.W.2d 231 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
Rw v. Tf 510 N.W.2d 231 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
Howe v. Nelson, 271 Minn. 296, 301-02 , -92 (1965).
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
The judgment arising out of the declaratory action operates as an adjudication upon the merits as to every matter actually litigated and “also as to every matter which might have been litigated.” (quoting Youngstown, 266 Minn, at 466, 124 *d at 340); see also Howe v. Nelson, 271 Minn. 296, 302-03 , (a declaratory judgment is a final decision on the merits which can have res judica-ta effect).
R.W. v. T.F. 510 N.W.2d 231 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
R.W. v. T.F. 510 N.W.2d 231 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
Howe v. Nelson, 271 Minn. 296, 301-02 , -92 (1965).
Moose Club v. LaBounty 442 N.W.2d 334 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Housing & Redevelopment Authority v. Alexander 437 N.W.2d 97 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Housing & Redevelopment Authority v. Alexander 437 N.W.2d 97 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Howe v. Nelson, 271 Minn. 296, 301
Riverbluff Development Co. v. Insurance Co. of North America 412 N.W.2d 792 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Riverbluff Development Co. v. Insurance Co. of North America 412 N.W.2d 792 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Howe v. Nelson, 271 Minn. 296, 301
Hofstad v. Hargest 412 N.W.2d 5 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Hofstad v. Hargest 412 N.W.2d 5 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Howe v. Nelson, 271 Minn. 296, 301
Crown Holding Corp. v. Larson 410 N.W.2d 373 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Crown Holding Corp. v. Larson 410 N.W.2d 373 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
See Howe v. Nelson, 271 Minn. 296, 301 , (res judicata precludes subsequent suits not only as to every matter litigated, but *376 also as to every claim or defense which might have been litigated.)
Waseca Mutual Insurance Co. v. Swanson 403 N.W.2d 678 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Waseca Mutual Insurance Co. v. Swanson 403 N.W.2d 678 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
(citing Howe v. Nelson, 271 Minn. 296, 301 , ).
Roseberg v. Steen 363 N.W.2d 102 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Roseberg v. Steen 363 N.W.2d 102 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Howe v. Nelson, 271 Minn. 296, 301
Nelson v. Engen 347 N.W.2d 57 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Nelson v. Engen 347 N.W.2d 57 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Howe v. Nelson, 271 Minn. 296
Ellis v. Minneapolis Commission on Civil Rights 319 N.W.2d 702 Minn. 1982
Ellis v. Minneapolis Commission on Civil Rights 319 N.W.2d 702 Minn. 1982
3 .Collateral estoppel has also been referred to as “estoppel by verdict,” Howe v. Nelson, 271 Minn. 296 , and, as “issue preclusion,”
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
We have observed that res judicata— “* * * operates as an absolute bar to a subsequent suit on the same cause of action, concluding the parties and their priviés not only as to every matter that was litigated but also as to any other claim or defense which might have been litigated.” Howe v. Nelson, 271 Minn. 296, 301
Peterson v. Knutson 233 N.W.2d 716 Minn. 1975
Peterson v. Knutson 233 N.W.2d 716 Minn. 1975
These cases support the result we reach: Antonson v. Ekvall, 295 Minn. 558 , McMenomy v. Ryden, 276 Minn. 55 , Howe v. Nelson, 271 Minn. 296 , Gammel v. Ernst & Ernst, 245 Minn. 249 , Melady-Briggs Cattle Corp. v. Drovers State Bank, 213 Minn. 304
Sachs v. Jenista 210 N.W.2d 45 Minn. 1973
Sachs v. Jenista 210 N.W.2d 45 Minn. 1973
1 Estoppel by former verdict is also known as “collateral estoppel,” see, e. g., Howe v. Nelson, 271 Minn. 296, 301 , and as “issue preclusion,” see, e. g., State of Michigan v. Morton Salt Co. 259 F. Supp. 35, 65 (D. Minn. 1966).

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by