DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Explore

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Wasmund v. Nunamaker, 151 N.W.2d 577.

27 citing documents.

  • In re State of Minnesota, Petitioner, Minn. 2023
  • In re State of Minnesota, Petitioner, State of Minnesota, Petitioner, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
    A writ of prohibition may also issue “to prevent an abuse of discretion where there is no other adequate remedy at law.”
  • In the Matter of the Welfare of the Children of: A. J. J. and J. D. J., Parents. Minn. Ct. App. 2022
    While prohibition may “issue to prevent an abuse of discretion where there is no other adequate remedy at law,” “[the] writ is a preventative, not a corrective, measure,” d 755, 769 (Minn. 2007).
  • Peter Gerard Lonergan, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
    “The writ is not one of right but of discretion and issues only in extreme cas es where the law affords no other adequate remedy by motion, trial, appeal, certiorari, or otherwise.”
  • Klapmeier v. Cirrus Industries, Inc. 900 N.W.2d 386 Minn. 2017
  • Klapmeier v. Cirrus Industries, Inc. 900 N.W.2d 386 Minn. 2017
    App. P. 139.04, and petitions for an extraordinary writ are rarely granted, see Wasmund v. Nunamaker, 277 Minn. 52 , (explaining that the writ of prohibition "issues only in extreme cases”); Nationwide Corp. v. Nw.
  • Minn. 2017
    App. P. 139.04, and petitions for an extraordinary writ are rarely granted, (explaining that the writ of prohibition “issues only in extreme cases”); Nationwide Corp. v. Nw.
  • 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
    5 Prohibition is an extraordinary remedy that this court issues only when (1) the district court is about to exercise judicial power that is (2) unauthorized by law and (3) “will result in injury for which there is no other adequate remedy at law.” Wasmund v. Nunamaker, 277 Minn. 52, 54
  • State v. Deal 740 N.W.2d 755 Minn. 2007
  • State v. Deal 740 N.W.2d 755 Minn. 2007
    e issued writs for numerous reasons, including: (1) when, as the court of appeals recognized, “the court has ordered the production of information clearly not discoverable and there is no adequate remedy at law;” (2) “to prevent abuse of discretion where there is no other adequate remedy at law[;]” (3) when “[the writ] will settle a rule of practice affecting all litigants,” Wasmund v. Nunamaker, 277 Minn. 52, 55 , and (4) “to correct an error of law in the lower court where no other adequate re
  • State v. Turner 550 N.W.2d 622 Minn. 1996
  • State v. Turner 550 N.W.2d 622 Minn. 1996
    oner must meet three requirements: “(1) an inferior court or tribunal must be about to exercise judicial or quasi-judicial power; (2) the exercise of such power must be unauthorized by law; and (3) the exercise of such power must result in injury for which there is no adequate remedy.” Minneapolis Star & (citing Wasmund v. Nunamaker, 277 Minn. 52 , ).
  • Loveland v. Kremer 464 N.W.2d 306 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
  • Loveland v. Kremer 464 N.W.2d 306 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
    In Wasmund v. Nunamaker, 277 Minn. 52, 54 , the court listed three requirements for the issuance of a writ: (1) [T]hat the court, officer, or person against whom the writ issues is about to exercise judicial or quasi-judicial power; (2) that the exercise of such power by such court, officer, or person is unauthorized by law; an
  • Blohm v. Minneapolis Urological Surgeons, P.A. 442 N.W.2d 812 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
  • Blohm v. Minneapolis Urological Surgeons, P.A. 442 N.W.2d 812 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
    (quoting Wasmund v. Nunamaker, 277 Minn. 52, 54 , ).
  • Parker v. O'PHELAN 414 N.W.2d 534 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
  • Parker v. O'PHELAN 414 N.W.2d 534 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
    The writ is discretionary “and issues only in extreme cases where the law affords no other adequate remedy[.]” Wasmund v. Nunamaker, 277 Minn. 52, 54
  • 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
    Richardson v. School Board of Independent School District No. 271, 297 Minn. 91 , Wasmund v. Nunamaker, 277 Minn. 52
  • 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.
  • 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 Mi