Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Cooper v. Watson, 187 N.W.2d 689.

52 citing documents.

In the Matter of: Wermager Beach Utility Company. Minn. Ct. App. 2026
In Re Instructions to Construe Basic Resolution 876 of the Port Authority of St. Paul 772 N.W.2d 488 Minn. 2009
In Re Instructions to Construe Basic Resolution 876 of the Port Authority of St. Paul 772 N.W.2d 488 Minn. 2009
73 Am.Jur.2d Statutes § 244 (2001); see also Cooper v. Watson, 290 Minn. 362, 369 , (quoting 50 Am.Jur.
Sletto v. Wesley Construction, Inc. 733 N.W.2d 838 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
Sletto v. Wesley Construction, Inc. 733 N.W.2d 838 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
Cooper v. Watson, 290 Minn. 362, 369
Murray v. Cisar 594 N.W.2d 918 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
Murray v. Cisar 594 N.W.2d 918 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
Another definition of a retrospective law is one intended to affect transactions ivhich occurred, or rights tuhich accrued, before it became operative, and which ascribes to them effects not inherent in their nature, in view of the law in force at the time of their occurrence.” (quoting Cooper v. Watson, 290 Minn. 362, 369 , ).
Ubel v. State 547 N.W.2d 366 Minn. 1996
Baron v. Lens Crafters, Inc. 514 N.W.2d 305 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
Baron v. Lens Crafters, Inc. 514 N.W.2d 305 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
Cooper v. Watson, 290 Minn. 362, 369 , In re Wage & Hour Violations of Holly Inn
Midwest Family Mutual Insurance v. Bleick 486 N.W.2d 435 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
Midwest Family Mutual Insurance v. Bleick 486 N.W.2d 435 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
See Cooper v. Watson, 290 Minn. 362, 367-68 , -93 (1971) (injury before statute’s effective date); Baune v. Farmers Ins.
Farm Credit Bank of St. Paul v. Ahrenstorff 479 N.W.2d 102 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
Farm Credit Bank of St. Paul v. Ahrenstorff 479 N.W.2d 102 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
In re Wage & Hour Violations of Holly Inns, Inc., (emphasis omitted) (citing Cooper v. Watson, 290 Minn. 362, 369 , ).
In Re Estate of Edhlund 444 N.W.2d 861 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
In Re Estate of Edhlund 444 N.W.2d 861 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
See also Cooper v. Watson, 290 Minn. 362, 369 , Chapman v. Davis, 233 Minn. 62, 65
LaVan Ex Rel. LaVan v. Community Clinic of Wabasha 425 N.W.2d 842 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
LaVan Ex Rel. LaVan v. Community Clinic of Wabasha 425 N.W.2d 842 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
The Lee court further relied on Cooper v. Watson, 290 Minn. 362 , which refused to apply a statute of limitations retroactively.
State v. Traczyk 421 N.W.2d 299 Minn. 1988
State v. Traczyk 421 N.W.2d 299 Minn. 1988
egislature intended that a statute be retroactively applied, we have previously stated “it is immaterial in this state whether a law alters procedural or substantive rights; the legislature still must express its intention to make it [the statute in question] retroactive.” In re Estate of Murphy v. State Dept. of Public Welfare, 293 Minn. 298, 308 , , (1972); Cooper v. Watson, 290 Minn. 362, 369 , Chapman v. Davis, 233 Minn. 62, 65
Voss v. Duerscherl 408 N.W.2d 161 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Voss v. Duerscherl 408 N.W.2d 161 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Cooper v. Watson, 290 Minn. 362, 369 , defined a retroactive or retrospective law as “one which takes away or impairs vested rights acquired under existing laws, or creates a new obligation and imposes a new duty, or attaches a new disability, in respect of transactions or considerations already past.” *166 Appellants arg
Williams v. Houston General Insurance Co. 396 N.W.2d 59 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Williams v. Houston General Insurance Co. 396 N.W.2d 59 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
§ 645.21 (1984) (“No law shall be construed to be retroactive unless clearly and manifestly so intended by the legislature”); Cooper v. Watson, 290 Minn. 362, 370 , (absent legislative intent, workers’ compensation statute amendment applied only to injuries occurring after the effective date of the amendment).
In Re Wage & Hour Violations of Holly Inn, Inc. 386 N.W.2d 305 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
In Re Wage & Hour Violations of Holly Inn, Inc. 386 N.W.2d 305 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Citing Chapman with approval, the court in Cooper v. Watson, 290 Minn. 362 , held that a rule requiring a written agreement as a prerequisite to an indemnity claim should not be applied retroactively.
Lovgren v. Peoples Elec. Co., Inc. 380 N.W.2d 791 Minn. 1986
Lovgren v. Peoples Elec. Co., Inc. 380 N.W.2d 791 Minn. 1986
Furthermore, as this court has stated: “Generally, it is immaterial whether a law alters procedural or substantive rights; the legislature must still express its intention to make it retroactive.” In re Estate of Murphy v. State Department of Public Welfare, 293 Minn. 298, 308 , see also Cooper v. Watson, 290 Minn. 362
Lee v. Industrial Electric Co. 375 N.W.2d 572 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Lee v. Industrial Electric Co. 375 N.W.2d 572 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Further, Kozisek and Anderson’s holdings are doubtful in light of Cooper v. Watson, 290 Minn. 362 , decided by the Minnesota Supreme Court with the command of Minn.Stat.
Haluptzok v. Peyton 355 N.W.2d 751 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Haluptzok v. Peyton 355 N.W.2d 751 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Cooper v. Watson, 290 Minn. 362, 369 , Chapman v. Davis, 233 Minn. 62, 64
Marriage of Halper v. Halper 348 N.W.2d 360 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Marriage of Halper v. Halper 348 N.W.2d 360 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
In Cooper v. Watson, 290 Minn. 362 , the Minnesota Supreme Court provided definitions of a retrospective law.
Calder v. City of Crystal 318 N.W.2d 838 Minn. 1982
Calder v. City of Crystal 318 N.W.2d 838 Minn. 1982
The city correctly concedes that a claim for contribution or indemnity is one which “generally is not considered to have accrued until payment is made.” The city maintains, however, that Cooper v. Watson, 290 Minn. 362 , permits the court to ignore whether an indemnity pr contribution claim is liquidated when it considers if a statute has retroactive application.
Parish v. Quie 294 N.W.2d 317 Minn. 1980
Parish v. Quie 294 N.W.2d 317 Minn. 1980
Minn. Stat. § 645.21 (1978); Brugger v. Brugger, 303 Minn. 488 , Cooper v. Watson, 290 Minn. 362 , Ekstrom v. Harmon, 256 Minn. 166 , Chapman v. Davis, 233 Minn. 62 , George Benz Sons, Inc. v. Schenley Distillers Corp., 227 Minn. 249
No Power Line, Inc. v. Minnesota Environmental Quality Council 262 N.W.2d 312 Minn. 1977
No Power Line, Inc. v. Minnesota Environmental Quality Council 262 N.W.2d 312 Minn. 1977
In construing § 645.21, this court noted in Ekstrom v. Harmon, 256 Minn. 166, 168 , : “If the legislature wishes to give retroactive operation to one of its statutes, so as to effect causes of action which arise before its enactment, even as to statutes relating to or governing procedure, it may easily make such an intention clearly manifest.” Accord, Cooper v. Watson, 290 Minn. 362, 367
Lambertson v. Cincinnati Corp. 257 N.W.2d 679 Minn. 1977
Lambertson v. Cincinnati Corp. 257 N.W.2d 679 Minn. 1977
She gained nothing by the workmen’s compensation act and, consequently, should not be deprived of a right which she would have under the common law.” See, also, Cooper v. Watson, 290 Minn. 362
State Mutual Life Assurance Co. of America v. Frantz Klodt & Son, Inc. 237 N.W.2d 354 Minn. 1975
State Mutual Life Assurance Co. of America v. Frantz Klodt & Son, Inc. 237 N.W.2d 354 Minn. 1975
See, also, Cooper v. Watson, 290 Minn. 362
Larson v. Independent School District No. 314 233 N.W.2d 744 Minn. 1975
Larson v. Independent School District No. 314 233 N.W.2d 744 Minn. 1975
Jur., Statutes, § 476, quoted in Cooper v. Watson, 290 Minn. 362, 369 , and Hunt v. Nevada State Bank, 285 Minn. 77, 97, note 19 , certiorari denied, 397 U. S. 1010 , 90 S. Ct. 1239 , 25 L. ed. 2d 423 (1970).
Zentz v. ITT Blackburn Corp. 214 N.W.2d 466 Minn. 1974
Zentz v. ITT Blackburn Corp. 214 N.W.2d 466 Minn. 1974
ovided in this chapter prosecuted by the employee, the employer, or both jointly against the third person, results in judgment against such third person, or settlement by such third person, the employer shall have no liability to reimburse or hold such third person harmless on such judgments or settlements in absence of a written agreement to do so executed prior to the injury.” Cooper v. Watson, 290 Minn. 362 , Haney v. International Harvester Co. 294 Minn. 375
Haney v. International Harvester Company 201 N.W.2d 140 Minn. 1972
Haney v. International Harvester Company 201 N.W.2d 140 Minn. 1972
Cooper v. Watson, 290 Minn. 362