Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Willeck v. Willeck, 176 N.W.2d 558.

25 citing documents.

St. Croix Development, LLC v. Gossman 735 N.W.2d 320 Minn. 2007
St. Croix Development, LLC v. Gossman 735 N.W.2d 320 Minn. 2007
Further, we have indicated that the existence of a special proceeding “is not dependent upon the existence of any other action and it therefore is not an integral *325 part of the original action but is separate and apart.” (quoting Willeck v. Willeck, 286 Minn. 553 , 554 n. 1, , 559 n. 1 (1970)).
In Re GlaxoSmithKline Plc 699 N.W.2d 749 Minn. 2005
In Re GlaxoSmithKline Plc 699 N.W.2d 749 Minn. 2005
286 Minn. 553 , 554 n. 1, , 559 n. 1 (1970).
In Re Estate of Janecek 610 N.W.2d 638 Minn. 2000
Explained In Re Estate of Janecek 610 N.W.2d 638 Minn. 2000
See Willeck v. Willeck, 286 Minn. 553 , 554 n. 1, , 559-60 n. 1 (1970); Chapman v. Dorsey, 230 Minn. 279, 283-84 , -41 (1950).
Marzitelli v. City of Little Canada 582 N.W.2d 904 Minn. 1998
Marzitelli v. City of Little Canada 582 N.W.2d 904 Minn. 1998
See also Willeck v. Willeck, 286 Minn. 553 , 554 fn.
Marzitelli v. City of Little Canada 569 N.W.2d 429 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
Pulju v. Metropolitan Property & Casualty 535 N.W.2d 608 Minn. 1995
Pulju v. Metropolitan Property & Casualty 535 N.W.2d 608 Minn. 1995
We are unable to identify any purpose served by this characterization and conclude that it is contrary to the cumulative discussions of the nature of “special proceedings” contained in Chapman v. Dorsey, 230 Minn. 279 , and Willeck v. Willeck, 286 Minn. 553
Application of Jobe 477 N.W.2d 723 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
Application of Jobe 477 N.W.2d 723 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
See Willeck v. Willeck, 286 Minn. 553 , 554 n. 1, , 559 n. 1 (1970).
Marriage of Hofseth v. Hofseth 456 N.W.2d 99 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
Marriage of Hofseth v. Hofseth 456 N.W.2d 99 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
Willeck v. Willeck, 286 Minn. 553, 555
In re Order of the District Court Issued On January 7, 1987 409 N.W.2d 546 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
In re Order of the District Court Issued On January 7, 1987 409 N.W.2d 546 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Willeck v. Willeck, 286 Minn. 553 , 554 n. 1, , 559 n. 1 (1970) (per cu- *549 riam).
Marriage of Angelos v. Angelos 367 N.W.2d 518 Minn. 1985
Marriage of Angelos v. Angelos 367 N.W.2d 518 Minn. 1985
quoting, Wil-leck v. Willeck, 286 Minn. 553 , 554 n. 1, , 559 n. 1 (1970).
Huygen v. Plums Enterprises of St. Paul, Inc. 355 N.W.2d 149 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Huygen v. Plums Enterprises of St. Paul, Inc. 355 N.W.2d 149 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Although Minnesota case law defines a special proceeding, Willeck v. Wil *153 leck, 286 Minn. 553 , 554 n. 1, , 559 n. 1 (1970), there is no single standard of review for special proceedings.
State Bank of Rose Creek v. Commerce Commission 305 N.W.2d 794 Minn. 1981
State Bank of Rose Creek v. Commerce Commission 305 N.W.2d 794 Minn. 1981
We defined such proceedings in Willeck v. Willeck, 286 Minn. 553, 554, n.1 , n.1 (1970), as follows: A special proceeding is defined as usually meaning such a proceeding as may be commenced independently of a pending action by petition or motion, upon notice, in order to obtain special relief.
Dow v. Sandstrom 190 N.W.2d 471 Minn. 1971
Dow v. Sandstrom 190 N.W.2d 471 Minn. 1971
Willeck v. Willeck, 286 Minn. 553 , 176 N. W. (2d) 558 .