Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Hentschel v. Smith, 153 N.W.2d 199.

58 citing documents.

Criticized McLaughlin’s Detroit Lakes, LLC, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2024
In sum, the record shows that there is no genuine issue of material fact that the four elements of res judicata have been satisfied for the preclusion of claims based on 3 We are not persuaded by Franklin Outdoor’s d 199 (Minn. 1967).
Joseph Lee Selisker, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
Generally, when an order or judgment is based solely on the agreement of the parties, “it is the duty of th e court to enter judgment in acc ordance with the agreement of 4 the parties and the court’s authority is limited by the consent or stipulation.”
Town of Denmark, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
“[I]t is always relevant in determinin g the effect of the judgment to ascertain the intent of the parties in accordance with the usual rule for construing their agreements.”
Steve Simon, in his official capacity as Minnesota Secretary of State, Minn. 2020
See Hentschel v. Smith , (explaining that a consent decree “is based wholly on the consent of the parties and there is no judicial inquiry into the facts or the law applicable to the controversy”); (stating that the decree “rests on the consent of the parties” and is not
Ashley Rae Crapser, petitioner, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
When a judgment is based solely on the ag reement and consent of the parties, the judgment is “not a judicial determination of the rights of the parties and does not purport to represent the judgment of the court, but merely records the pre-existing agreement of the parties.” Hentschel v. Smith , 278 Minn. 86, 96, 06 (1967) (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota by its Minnesota Pollution Control Agency v. Diane C. Anderson Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota by its Minnesota Pollution Control Agency v. Diane C. Anderson Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Hentschel v. Smith, 278 Minn. 86, 95
In re the Marriage of: Thomas Erle Tornstrom v. Jennifer Lynn Tornstrom, n/k/a Jennifer Lynn Klemenhagen 887 N.W.2d 680 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
In re the Marriage of: Thomas Erle Tornstrom v. Jennifer Lynn Tornstrom, n/k/a Jennifer Lynn Klemenhagen 887 N.W.2d 680 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
See Schmidt v. Smith, 299 Minn. 103, 107-08, -72 (1974); see also Hentschel v. Smith, 278 Minn. 86, 92, (stating that “[t]his court has always supported a strong public policy favoring the settlement of disputed claims without litigation”).
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
Christianson v. Henke 812 N.W.2d 190 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
Christianson v. Henke 812 N.W.2d 190 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
nflicts with the general rule that “the law favors the settlement of disputed claims without litigation.” Esser v. Brophey, 212 Minn. 194, 196 , (quotation omitted); see also Minneapolis Star & (“This court has often stated that it favors the settlement of disputed claims without litigation.”); Hentschel v. Smith, 278 Minn. 86, 92 , (stating that “[t]his court has always supported a strong public policy favoring the settlement of disputed claims without litigation”).
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.
Rucker v. Schmidt 768 N.W.2d 408 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
Rucker v. Schmidt 768 N.W.2d 408 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
(citing Hentschel v. Smith, 278 Minn. 86, 95 , ).
In Re Buckmaster 755 N.W.2d 570 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
In Re Buckmaster 755 N.W.2d 570 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
Hentschel v. Smith, 278 Minn. 86, 98
City of Barnum v. Sabri 657 N.W.2d 201 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
Distinguished City of Barnum v. Sabri 657 N.W.2d 201 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
Hentschel v. Smith, 278 Minn. 86, 94
G.A.W. v. D.M.W. 596 N.W.2d 284 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
Gaw v. Dmw 596 N.W.2d 284 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
Gaw v. Dmw 596 N.W.2d 284 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
Hentschel v. Smith, 278 Minn. 86, 94 , (noting that a consent judgment implies no determination by the court of any issues in the case, and therefore a consent judgment should not be the basis for a collateral estoppel action, except in the rare case where it may be fairly said that the parties intended this effect); Restat
G.A.W. v. D.M.W. 596 N.W.2d 284 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
Hentschel v. Smith, 278 Minn. 86, 94 , (noting that a consent judgment implies no determination by the court of any issues in the case, and therefore a consent judgment should not be the basis for a collateral estoppel action, except in the rare case where it may b,e fairly said that the parties intended this effect); Resta
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
Hentschel v. Smith, 278 Minn. 86, 95
Berens v. Berens 443 N.W.2d 558 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Berens v. Berens 443 N.W.2d 558 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
at 503 (citing Hentschel v. Smith, 278 Minn. 86, 92 , (consent judgments have estoppel effect)).
Marriage of Karon v. Karon 435 N.W.2d 501 Minn. 1989
Marriage of Karon v. Karon 435 N.W.2d 501 Minn. 1989
See Hentschel v. Smith, 278 Minn. 86, 92 , (consent judgments have estop-pel effect).
Denzer v. Frisch 430 N.W.2d 471 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Denzer v. Frisch 430 N.W.2d 471 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
For this proposition they cite Hentschel v. Smith, 278 Minn. 86
Sunrise Electric, Inc. v. Zachman Homes, Inc. 425 N.W.2d 848 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Sunrise Electric, Inc. v. Zachman Homes, Inc. 425 N.W.2d 848 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Hentschel v. Smith, 278 Minn. 86, 93 , see also J. Friedenthal, et al., supra, and Restatement (Second) of Judgments § 27 (1982).
Brunsoman v. Seltz 414 N.W.2d 547 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Brunsoman v. Seltz 414 N.W.2d 547 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
While mere participation may not be sufficient to raise collateral estoppel, see Hentschel v. Smith, 278 Minn. 86, 95 , the trial court’s finding of privity was justified on these facts.
Hollenkamp v. Peters 410 N.W.2d 427 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Hollenkamp v. Peters 410 N.W.2d 427 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Hentschel v. Smith, 278 Minn. 86, 95
Wills v. Citizens State Bank of Silver Lake 399 N.W.2d 626 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Wills v. Citizens State Bank of Silver Lake 399 N.W.2d 626 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Hentschel v. Smith, 278 Minn. 86
Minneapolis Star & Tribune Co. v. Schumacher 392 N.W.2d 197 Minn. 1986
Minneapolis Star & Tribune Co. v. Schumacher 392 N.W.2d 197 Minn. 1986
Paul Insurance Co., Hentschel v. Smith, 278 Minn. 86 , (“This court has always supported a strong public policy favoring the settlement of disputed claims without litigation”); see also Esser, 212 Minn. 194 , .
In Re Minneapolis Community Development Agency Ex Rel. Certificate of Title No. 471580 359 N.W.2d 687 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
In Re Minneapolis Community Development Agency Ex Rel. Certificate of Title No. 471580 359 N.W.2d 687 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Sachs v. Jenista, 296 Minn. 535 , Hentschel v. Smith, 278 Minn. 86
Cook v. Connolly 353 N.W.2d 184 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
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
Hentschel v. Smith, 278 Minn. 86, 95
Holasek v. First National Bank of Rochester 278 N.W.2d 519 Minn. 1979
Holasek v. First National Bank of Rochester 278 N.W.2d 519 Minn. 1979
2 Hentschel v. Smith, 278 Minn. 86, 95 , Scott-Peabody & Assoc, v. Northern Leasing Corp., 273 Minn. 236

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by