Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Thermorama, Inc. v. Shiller, 135 N.W.2d 43.

37 citing documents.

In re Polaris, Inc., Petitioner, Minn. 2021
“Prohibition is an extraordinary remedy and should be used only in extraordinary cases.” Thermorama
In re Stephen A. Lawrence, et al., Petitioners, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
“Prohibition is an extraordinary remedy and should be used only in extraordinary cases.” Thermorama, Inc. v. Shiller
In re B.H., Minn. 2020
ANALYSIS “Prohibition is an extraordin ary remedy and should be us ed only in extraordinary cases.” Thermorama, Inc. v. Shiller
In re Kathryn M. Truscott f/k/a Kathryn M. Ranheim, Stacey A. McNeely v. Kathryn M. Truscott f/k/a Kathryn … Minn. Ct. App. 2016
In re Kathryn M. Truscott f/k/a Kathryn M. Ranheim, Stacey A. McNeely v. Kathryn M. Truscott f/k/a Kathryn … Minn. Ct. App. 2016
See Thermorama, Inc. v. Shiller, 271 Minn. 79, 84, (discussing that, in appropriate cases, a writ of prohibition may be used to avoid “the harshness of the rule which requires an attorney to subject himself to a finding of contempt and then appeal from the contempt order before a pretrial order can be reviewed”).
In Re Paul W. Abbott Co., Inc. 767 N.W.2d 14 Minn. 2009
In Re Paul W. Abbott Co., Inc. 767 N.W.2d 14 Minn. 2009
Thermorama, Inc. v. Shiller, 271 Minn. 79, 83-84 , (emphasis added).
Underdahl v. Commissioner of Public Safety 735 N.W.2d 706 Minn. 2007
Underdahl v. Commissioner of Public Safety 735 N.W.2d 706 Minn. 2007
Thermorama, Inc. v. Shitter, 271 Minn. 79, 83-84
Wiggin v. Apple Valley Medical Clinic, Ltd. 459 N.W.2d 918 Minn. 1990
Wiggin v. Apple Valley Medical Clinic, Ltd. 459 N.W.2d 918 Minn. 1990
Thermorama, Inc. v. Shiller, 271 Minn. 79, 83-84
Shetka v. Kueppers, Kueppers, Von Feldt & Salmen 454 N.W.2d 916 Minn. 1990
Shetka v. Kueppers, Kueppers, Von Feldt & Salmen 454 N.W.2d 916 Minn. 1990
Thermorama, Inc. v. Shiller, 271 Minn. 79, 83-84
Carlisle Ex Rel. Scott v. City of Minneapolis 437 N.W.2d 712 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Carlisle Ex Rel. Scott v. City of Minneapolis 437 N.W.2d 712 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Thermorama, Inc. v. Skiller, 271 Minn. 79, 83
Clark v. Monnens 436 N.W.2d 830 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Clark v. Monnens 436 N.W.2d 830 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
“Normally, the trial court has a wide discretion in determining whether the discovery rules are being used by a litigant in bad faith to unreasonably annoy, embarrass, oppress, or injure a party or the witnesses, and also has a wide discretion in protecting the parties and witnesses from such abuses.” Thermorama, Inc. v. Shiller, 271 Minn. 79, 83 , (citations omitted).
In Re Charges of Unprofessional Conduct Against N.P. 361 N.W.2d 386 Minn. 1985
In Re Charges of Unprofessional Conduct Against N.P. 361 N.W.2d 386 Minn. 1985
We nevertheless address this issue under the principle that it “will settle a rule of practice affecting all litigants,” and is a rule of “apparent importance to the litigants and to the bench and bar as a whole.” Leininger v. Swadner, 279 Minn. 251, 259 , (quoting Thermorama, Inc. v. Shiller, 271 Minn. 79, 84 , , 46 (1965)).
Narveson v. White 355 N.W.2d 474 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Narveson v. White 355 N.W.2d 474 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Thermorama, Inc. v. Shiller, 271 Minn. 79, 83
Hancock-Nelson Mercantile Co. v. Weisman 340 N.W.2d 866 Minn. Ct. App. 1983
Hancock-Nelson Mercantile Co. v. Weisman 340 N.W.2d 866 Minn. Ct. App. 1983
See, e.g., Wasmund v. Nunamaker, 277 Minn. 52 , (discovery); Thermorama v. Shiller, 271 Minn. 79 , (discovery); Ginsberg v. Williams, 270 Minn. 474 , (new trial); Weidel v. Plummer, 243 Minn. 476 , (temporary award of child custody); State ex rel.
In Re the Welfare of C. W. S. 267 N.W.2d 496 Minn. 1978
In Re the Welfare of C. W. S. 267 N.W.2d 496 Minn. 1978
Writs of prohibition are issued to restrain action by a lower court “where it appears that the court is about to exceed its jurisdiction or where it appears the action of the court relates to a matter *498 that is decisive of the case * * Thermorama, Inc. v. Schiller, 271 Minn. 79, 84
Randall v. Segell 265 N.W.2d 832 Minn. 1978
Randall v. Segell 265 N.W.2d 832 Minn. 1978
Writs of prohibition are issued to restrain action by a lower court “where it appears that the court is • about to exceed its jurisdiction.” Thermorama, Inc. v. Shiller, 271 Minn. 79, 84
Mampel v. Eastern Heights State Bank of St. Paul 254 N.W.2d 375 Minn. 1977
Mampel v. Eastern Heights State Bank of St. Paul 254 N.W.2d 375 Minn. 1977
See, Wasmund v. Nunamaker, 277 Minn. 52 , Thermorama, Inc. v. Shiller, 271 Minn. 79 , Jeppesen v. Swanson, 243 Minn. 547
Petition of Giblin 232 N.W.2d 214 Minn. 1975
Petition of Giblin 232 N.W.2d 214 Minn. 1975
“G. That final hearing on this cause be and it is set for August 12, 1974 at 2:00 P.M.” See, Wasmund v. Nunamaker, 277 Minn. 52 , Thermorama, Inc. v. Shiller, 271 Minn. 79 , Griggs, Cooper & Co. v. Lauer’s, Inc. 264 Minn. 338 , Smith v. Tuman, 262 Minn. 149 , State v. Hartman, 261 Minn. 314 , Mariner v. Whipple, 259 Minn. 18 , Bellows v. Ericson, 233 Minn. 320
Leininger v. Swadner 156 N.W.2d 254 Minn. 1968
Leininger v. Swadner 156 N.W.2d 254 Minn. 1968
We have held that extraordinary remedies will be granted in unusual cases “where it will settle a rule of practice affecting all litigants” or where it appears that the action of the court “relates to a matter that is decisive of the case.” Thermorama, Inc. v. Shiller, 271 Minn. 79, 84 , 135 N. W. (2d) 43, 46 .
Wasmund v. Nunamaker 151 N.W.2d 577 Minn. 1967
Wasmund v. Nunamaker 151 N.W.2d 577 Minn. 1967
1 We held in Thermorama, Inc. v. Shiller, 271 Minn. 79 , 135 N. W. (2d) 43 , that whether the supreme court of this state, before actual commencement of trial, should review a pretrial discovery order is dependent upon whether it appears that the court is about to exceed its jurisdiction or its action relates to a matter that is decisive of the case; where the court has o
State v. Ramsey County District Court 150 N.W.2d 18 Minn. 1967
State v. Ramsey County District Court 150 N.W.2d 18 Minn. 1967
Thermorama, Inc. v. Shiller, 271 Minn. 79 , 135 N. W. (2d) 43 .