Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite McMenomy v. Ryden, 148 N.W.2d 804.

60 citing documents.

Michael John Husten, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
Timothy Soboleski, Individually and as Personal Representative of the Estate of Frank Soboleski, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
Community Finance Group, Inc., Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
at 840-41 (quoting McMenomy 12 v. Ryden, ).
Jerry Duwenhoegger, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
Two claims involve the same set of factual circumstances if “the same evidence will sustain both actions.” McMenomy v. Ryden
Dustin Ward, et al., Appellants, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
2018) (collecting cases).8 The cases collected in Alvarez explain that privity exists between separate 7 The supreme c ourt addressed privity between shareholders and the Securities and Exchange Commission in McMenomy v. Ryden , -07 (Minn. 1967).
Jeffrey James Nathe, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Maria Olson, et al., Appellants, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
The “common test for determining whether a former judgment is a bar to a subsequent action is to inquire whether the same evidence will sustain both actions.” Hauschildt, d at 840-41 (quoting McMenomy v. Ryden, 276 Minn. 55, 58, ).
Bert Lawrence Pexsa, et al., Appellants, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
The common test for determining whether an action is precluded is to determine “whether the same evidence will sustain both actions.” McMenomy v. Ryden, 276 Minn. 55, 58
Reichel Investments, L.P. v. Craig A. Reichel Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Reichel Investments, L.P. v. Craig A. Reichel Minn. Ct. App. 2016
It may also be found when a person is “so identified in interest with another that he represents the same legal right.” McMenomy v. Ryden, 276 Minn. 55, 58- 59, (quotation omitted).
Marjorie Gowan v. The Estate of Robert E. Pape Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Marjorie Gowan v. The Estate of Robert E. Pape Minn. Ct. App. 2016
However, privity may also be found in other circumstances, when a person is otherwise “so identified in interest with another that he represents the same legal right.” McMenomy v. Ryden, 276 Minn. 55, 58-59, (quotation omitted).
David J. Mach, Jr. v. Wells Concrete Products Co., and CCMSI, Relators, and Blue Cross Blue Shield, Operating … 866 N.W.2d 921 Minn. 2015
David J. Mach, Jr. v. Wells Concrete Products Co., and CCMSI, Relators, and Blue Cross Blue Shield, Operating … 866 N.W.2d 921 Minn. 2015
The common test for determining whether an action is precluded is to determine “whether the same evidence will sustain both actions.” McMenomy v. Ryden, 276 Minn. 55, 58
Bemidji Township v. City of Bemidji, Northern Township, Greater Bemidji Area Joint Planning Board Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Bemidji Township v. City of Bemidji, Northern Township, Greater Bemidji Area Joint Planning Board Minn. Ct. App. 2015
at 840-41 (quoting McMenomy v. Ryden, 276 Minn. 55, 58, d 804, 807 (1967)).
Schober v. Commissioner of Revenue 853 N.W.2d 102 Minn. 2013
Schober v. Commissioner of Revenue 853 N.W.2d 102 Minn. 2013
McMenomy v. Ryden, 276 Minn. 55, 58
Rucker v. Schmidt 794 N.W.2d 114 Minn. 2011
Rucker v. Schmidt 794 N.W.2d 114 Minn. 2011
“ ‘Privies’ to a judgment are those who are so connected with the parties in estate or in blood or in law as to be identified with them in interest, and consequently to be affected with them by the litigation.” Hentschel v. Smith, 278 Minn. 86, 95 , see also McMeno-my v. Ryden, 276 Minn. 55, 58-59 , (citing 30A Am.Jur.
Antone v. Mirviss 720 N.W.2d 331 Minn. 2006
Hauschildt v. Beckingham 686 N.W.2d 829 Minn. 2004
Hauschildt v. Beckingham 686 N.W.2d 829 Minn. 2004
The “common test for determining whether a former judgment is a bar to a subsequent action is to inquire whether the same evidence will sustain *841 both actions.” McMenomy v. Ryden, 276 Minn. 55, 58
State v. Joseph 636 N.W.2d 322 Minn. 2001
State v. Joseph 636 N.W.2d 322 Minn. 2001
To determine whether two parties are in privity, we examine carefully the circumstances of the case before us. Margo-Kraft Distribs., Inc. v. Minneapolis Gas Co., 294 Minn. 274, 278 , -48 (1972); McMenomy v. Ryden, 276 Minn. 55, 59 , (citations omitted).
SMA Services, Inc. v. Weaver 632 N.W.2d 770 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
SMA Services, Inc. v. Weaver 632 N.W.2d 770 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
McMenomy v. Ryden, 276 Minn. 55, 58
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 McMenomy v. Ryden, 276 Minn. 55, 58
Saint Paul Fire & Marine Insurance Co. v. Central National Insurance Co. of Omaha 480 N.W.2d 681 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
Saint Paul Fire & Marine Insurance Co. v. Central National Insurance Co. of Omaha 480 N.W.2d 681 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
McMenomy v. Ryden, 276 Minn. 55, 58 , d 804, 807 (1967).
Surf and Sand, Inc. v. Gardebring 457 N.W.2d 782 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
Surf and Sand, Inc. v. Gardebring 457 N.W.2d 782 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
McMenomy v. Ryden, 276 Minn. 55, 58 , (quoting MeladyBriggs, 213 Minn, at 309, d at 457 ).
Matter of Medcenters Health Care, Inc. 450 N.W.2d 635 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
Matter of Medcenters Health Care, Inc. 450 N.W.2d 635 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
McMenomy v. Ryden, 276 Minn. 55, 58
Johnson v. Hunter 447 N.W.2d 871 Minn. 1989
Johnson v. Hunter 447 N.W.2d 871 Minn. 1989
See, e.g., McMenomy v. Ryden, 276 Minn. 55, 59
Johnson v. Hunter 435 N.W.2d 821 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Johnson v. Hunter 435 N.W.2d 821 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
See McMenomy v. Ryden, 276 Minn. 55, 58-59
Beutz v. A.O. Smith Harvestore Products, Inc. 431 N.W.2d 528 Minn. 1988
Beutz v. A.O. Smith Harvestore Products, Inc. 431 N.W.2d 528 Minn. 1988
McMenomy v. Ryden, 276 Minn. 55 , (citing 30A Am.Jur., Judgments, § 399).
Wessling v. Johnson 424 N.W.2d 795 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Wessling v. Johnson 424 N.W.2d 795 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
McMenomy v. Ryden, 276 Minn. 55, 58
Jadwin v. Minneapolis Star & Tribune Co. 367 N.W.2d 476 Minn. 1985
City of Savage v. Varey 358 N.W.2d 102 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
City of Savage v. Varey 358 N.W.2d 102 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Not only was the arbitration clause a bar to litigating all claims, but the evidence required to try all claims was not the same evidence required to sustain the Varey action, see, McMenomy v. Ryden, 276 Minn. 55 , in fact, as the trial court noted, that evidence would have overwhelmed the Varey trespass claim.
Miller v. Northwestern National Insurance Co. 354 N.W.2d 58 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Miller v. Northwestern National Insurance Co. 354 N.W.2d 58 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
McMenomy v. Ryden, 276 Minn. 55
Bifulk v. Evans 353 N.W.2d 258 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Bifulk v. Evans 353 N.W.2d 258 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
a. The Minnesota Supreme Court has stated: The common test for determining whether a former judgment is a bar to a subsequent action is to inquire whether the same evidence will sustain both actions, (citations omitted) McMenomy v. Ryden, 276 Minn. 55, 58