Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Rognrud v. Zubert, 165 N.W.2d 244.

36 citing documents.

Ruth Unger v. AAA Insurance Company Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Ruth Unger v. AAA Insurance Company Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Rognrud v. Zubert, 282 Minn. 430, 433-34, see also Minn. R. Civ.
Schmitz v. United States Steel Corp. 831 N.W.2d 656 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
Schmitz v. United States Steel Corp. 831 N.W.2d 656 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
United Prairie Bank, d at 54 ; Rognrud v. Zubert, 282 Minn. 430, 433-34
United Prairie Bank-Mountain Lake v. Haugen Nutrition & Equipment, LLC 813 N.W.2d 49 Minn. 2012
Storms v. Schneider 802 N.W.2d 824 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
Storms v. Schneider 802 N.W.2d 824 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
See Rognrud v. Zubert, 282 Minn. 430, 434, -48 (1969); Indianhead Truck Line, Inc. v. Hvidsten Transp., Inc., 268 Minn. 176, 192-94, -47 (1964).
Abraham v. County of Hennepin 639 N.W.2d 342 Minn. 2002
Abraham v. County of Hennepin 639 N.W.2d 342 Minn. 2002
See Rognrud v. Zubert, 282 Minn. 430, 434 , (concluding that causes of action that are legal, as opposed to equitable, are entitled to jury trial); Landgraf v. Ellsworth, 267 Minn. 323, 327 , (concluding that suit on contract to recover money is legal action, and as such, triable to jury); Westerlund
Olson v. Synergistic Technologies Business Systems, Inc. 628 N.W.2d 142 Minn. 2001
Abraham v. County of Hennepin 622 N.W.2d 121 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
Abraham v. County of Hennepin 622 N.W.2d 121 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
For example, in Rognrud v. Zubert, 282 Minn. 430 , the supreme court held that there is no right to a jury trial in an action for specific performance of a contract to convey real estate because historically such an action was equitable rather than legal.
Denman v. Gans 607 N.W.2d 788 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
Denman v. Gans 607 N.W.2d 788 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
Rognrud v. Zubert, 282 Minn. 430, 434
State Ex Rel. Humphrey v. Alpine Air Products, Inc. 490 N.W.2d 888 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
State Ex Rel. Humphrey v. Alpine Air Products, Inc. 490 N.W.2d 888 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
In Rognrud v. Zubert, 282 Minn. 430, 433-34 , the supreme court interpreted the constitutional right to a jury trial: We have often held that the only actions in which Minn. Const, art 1, § 4 * * * and Rule 38.01 * * * guarantee the right to a jury trial are those which were conceived of as ‘legal’ so that such a right existed
Alton M. Johnson Co. v. M.A.I. Co. 463 N.W.2d 277 Minn. 1990
Alton M. Johnson Co. v. M.A.I. Co. 463 N.W.2d 277 Minn. 1990
Rognrud v. Zubert, 282 Minn. 430 , (no entitlement to a jury trial in an action for specific performance).
Baldinger Baking Co. v. Stepan 354 N.W.2d 569 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Baldinger Baking Co. v. Stepan 354 N.W.2d 569 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Rognrud v, Zubert, 282 Minn. 430
Matter of Estate of Prigge 352 N.W.2d 443 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Matter of Estate of Prigge 352 N.W.2d 443 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
In Rognrud v. Zubert, 282 Minn. 430 , the Minnesota Supreme Court interpreted Article 1, section 4, as guaranteeing the right to a jury trial as to those rights: which were conceived of as “legal,” so that such a right existed with respect to them, at the time the Minnesota Constitution was adopted.
Olson v. Aretz 346 N.W.2d 178 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Olson v. Aretz 346 N.W.2d 178 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
The constitutional right to a jury trial was interpreted in Rognrud v. Zubert, 282 Minn. 430, 433-34
Matter of Estate of Congdon 309 N.W.2d 261 Minn. 1981
Matter of Estate of Congdon 309 N.W.2d 261 Minn. 1981
The constitutional right to a jury trial finds its origin in Article 1, section 4, of the Minnesota Constitution: “The right of trial by jury shall remain inviolate, and shall extend to all cases at law without regard to the amount in controversy.” In Rognrud v. Zubert, 282 Minn. 430 , this court interpreted that constitutional provision as follows: We have often held that the only actions in which Minn.Const.
Hilton v. Nelsen 283 N.W.2d 877 Minn. 1979
Hilton v. Nelsen 283 N.W.2d 877 Minn. 1979
See, also, Ahlstrand v. McPherson, 285 Minn. 398 , and Rognrud v. Zubert, 282 Minn. 430
In Re Application of Berman v. Kieren 247 N.W.2d 405 Minn. 1976
In Re Application of Berman v. Kieren 247 N.W.2d 405 Minn. 1976
The Melco Investment Co. v. Gapp, 259 Minn. 82 , Rognrud v. Zubert, 282 Minn. 430
Sina v. Schifsky 208 N.W.2d 302 Minn. 1973
Sina v. Schifsky 208 N.W.2d 302 Minn. 1973
“Obviously,” as we said in Rognrud v. Zubert, 282 Minn. 430, 435 , footnote 8, “if the ‘equitable’ issues are dispositive of the case, there is no reason to have the jury pass on the ‘legal’ issues.” See, also, 2 Hetland & Adamson, Minnesota Practice, Civil Rules Ann., p. 125.
Megarry Brothers, Inc. v. State 188 N.W.2d 919 Minn. 1971
Megarry Brothers, Inc. v. State 188 N.W.2d 919 Minn. 1971
Distillers Distributing Co. v. Young, 261 Minn. 549 , 113 N. W. (2d) 175 ; Rognrud v. Zubert, 282 Minn. 430 , 165 N. W. (2d) 244 .
Ahlstrand v. McPherson 173 N.W.2d 330 Minn. 1969
Ahlstrand v. McPherson 173 N.W.2d 330 Minn. 1969
The more recent decisions of Rognrud v. Zubert, 282 Minn. 430 , 165 N. W. (2d) 244 ; The Melco Investment Co. v. Gapp, 259 Minn. 82 , 105 N. W. (2d) 907 , and Enkema v. McIntyre, 136 Minn. 293 , , 2 A. L. R. 411, are consistent with this statement of law.