Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Margo-Kraft Distributors, Inc. v. Minneapolis Gas Co., 200 N.W.2d 45.

53 citing documents.

Voyageurs Retreat Community Association, et al., Appellants, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
Dustin Ward, et al., Appellants, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
Reichel Investments, L.P. v. Craig A. Reichel Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Reichel Investments, L.P. v. Craig A. Reichel Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Courts will find privity as to “those who control an action although not parties to it[,]” “those whose interests are represented by a party to the action[,]” and “successors in interest to those having derivative claims.” Margo-Kraft Distribs., Inc. v. Minneapolis Gas Co., 294 Minn. 274, 278, -48 (1972) (quotation omitted).
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
Courts will find privity as to “those who control an action although not parties to it[,]” “those whose interests are represented by a party to the action[,]” and “successors in interest to those having derivative claims.” Margo-Kraft Distribs., Inc. v. Minneapolis Gas Co., 294 Minn. 274, 278, -48 (1972) (quotation omitted).
In re the Matter of the Petition of Nationstar Mortgage, LLC, For a New Certificate of Title After … Minn. Ct. App. 2015
In re the Matter of the Petition of Nationstar Mortgage, LLC, For a New Certificate of Title After … Minn. Ct. App. 2015
See Margo-Kraft Distribs., -48 (Minn. 1972) (“Those in privity would include .
Bemidji Township v. City of Bemidji, Northern Township, Greater Bemidji Area Joint Planning Board Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Bemidji Township v. City of Bemidji, Northern Township, Greater Bemidji Area Joint Planning Board Minn. Ct. App. 2015
A person is in privity with a party only if the person’s “‘interests are affected by the judgment with reference to interests involved in the action, as if they were parties,’” Rucker, d at 118 (quoting Margo-Kraft Distribs., Inc. v. Minneapolis Gas Co., 294 Minn. 274, 278, (quoting Restatement (First) of Judgments § 83 cmt.
Rucker v. Schmidt 794 N.W.2d 114 Minn. 2011
Rucker v. Schmidt 794 N.W.2d 114 Minn. 2011
Privity “ ‘expresses the idea that as to certain matters and in certain circumstances persons who are not parties to an action but who are connected with it in their interests are affected by the judgment with reference to interests involved in the action, as if they were parties.’ ” Margo-Kraft Distribs., Inc. v. Minneapolis Gas Co., 294 Minn. 274, 278 , (quoting Restatement (First) of Judgments § 88 cmt.
Rucker v. Schmidt 768 N.W.2d 408 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
Rucker v. Schmidt 768 N.W.2d 408 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
Co., (citing Margo-Kraft Distribs., Inc. v. Minneapolis Gas Co., 294 Minn. 274 , ).
State Ex Rel. Friends of the Riverfront v. City of Minneapolis 751 N.W.2d 586 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
State Ex Rel. Friends of the Riverfront v. City of Minneapolis 751 N.W.2d 586 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
so we must carefully examine the circumstance of each case.” Margo-Kraft Distribs., Inc. v. Minneapolis Gas Co., 294 Minn. 274, 278
State v. Lemmer 736 N.W.2d 650 Minn. 2007
State v. Lemmer 736 N.W.2d 650 Minn. 2007
Margo-Kraft Distribs., Inc. v. Minneapolis Gas Co., 294 Minn. 274, 278
Crossman v. Lockwood 713 N.W.2d 58 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
Crossman v. Lockwood 713 N.W.2d 58 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
” Margo-Kraft Distribs., Inc. v. Minneapolis Gas Co., 294 Minn. 274, 278
State v. Joseph 636 N.W.2d 322 Minn. 2001
State v. Joseph 636 N.W.2d 322 Minn. 2001
To determine whether two parties are in privity, we examine carefully the circumstances of the case before us. Margo-Kraft Distribs., Inc. v. Minneapolis Gas Co., 294 Minn. 274, 278 , -48 (1972); McMenomy v. Ryden, 276 Minn. 55, 59 , (citations omitted).
State v. Victorsen 627 N.W.2d 655 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
State v. Victorsen 627 N.W.2d 655 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
Margo-Kraft Distribs., Inc. v. Minneapolis Gas Co., 294 *661 Minn. 274, 278
Balasuriya v. Bemel 617 N.W.2d 596 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
Balasuriya v. Bemel 617 N.W.2d 596 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
Privies include nonparties who control an action and “those whose interests are represented by a party to thb action.” Margo-Kraft Distribs., Inc. v. Minneapolis Gas Co., 294 Minn. 274, 278 , (citation omitted).
Reil v. Benjamin 584 N.W.2d 442 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
Bublitz v. Commissioner of Revenue 545 N.W.2d 382 Minn. 1996
Bublitz v. Commissioner of Revenue 545 N.W.2d 382 Minn. 1996
See generally Margo-Krafl Distribs., Inc. v. Minneapolis Gas Co., 294 Minn. 274, 281 , (holding that “one who individually or in cooperation with others so controls an action in advancing his own interests has had his day in court and, in justice, should be bound by the adjudication”).
Houlihan v. Fimon 454 N.W.2d 633 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
Houlihan v. Fimon 454 N.W.2d 633 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
“There is no prevailing definition of privity which can automatically be applied.” Margo-Kraft Distributors, Inc. v. Minneapolis Gas Co., 294 Minn. 274, 278
Johnson v. Hunter 447 N.W.2d 871 Minn. 1989
Johnson v. Hunter 447 N.W.2d 871 Minn. 1989
See Margo-Kraft Distribs., Inc. v. Minneapolis Gas Co., 294 Minn. 274, 278 , 4 Mason’s § 2535.
Johnson v. Hunter 435 N.W.2d 821 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Johnson v. Hunter 435 N.W.2d 821 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Margo-Kraft Distributors, Inc. v. Minneapolis Gas Co., 294 Minn. 274, 278
Denzer v. Frisch 430 N.W.2d 471 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Denzer v. Frisch 430 N.W.2d 471 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
“There is no prevailing definition of privity which can automatically be applied * * Margo-Kraft Distributors, Inc. v. Minneapolis Gas Company, 294 Minn. 274, 278
Brunsoman v. Seltz 414 N.W.2d 547 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Brunsoman v. Seltz 414 N.W.2d 547 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
See Margo-Kraft Distributors, Inc. v. Minneapolis Gas Co., 294 Minn. 274, 278 , , (1972).
Pirrotta v. Independent School District No. 347 396 N.W.2d 20 Minn. 1986
Pirrotta v. Independent School District No. 347 396 N.W.2d 20 Minn. 1986
See, e.g., Margo-Kraft Distributors, Inc. v. Minneapolis Gas Co., 294 Minn. 274, 278
BOGENHOLM BY BOGENHOLM v. House 388 N.W.2d 402 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
BOGENHOLM BY BOGENHOLM v. House 388 N.W.2d 402 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Margo-Kraft Distributors, Inc. v. Minneapolis Gas Co., 294 Minn. 274, 278
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
Margo-Kraft Distributors, Inc. v. Minneapolis Gas Co., 294 Minn. 274
Bifulk v. Evans 353 N.W.2d 258 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Bifulk v. Evans 353 N.W.2d 258 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
In Margo-Kraft Distributors, Inc. v. Minneapolis Gas Co., 294 Minn. 274, 278 , -48 (1972), the Minnesota Supreme Court stated: Although there is no precise test of “privity,” it is, as stated in Restatement, Judgments, § 83, Comment a, “a word which expresses the idea that as to certain matters and in certain circumstances persons who are not parties to an action but who
State of Minn., City of Burnsville v. Juarez 345 N.W.2d 801 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
State of Minn., City of Burnsville v. Juarez 345 N.W.2d 801 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Inc. v. Minneapolis Gas Co., 294 Minn. 274, 278
County of Ramsey v. Stevens 283 N.W.2d 918 Minn. 1979

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by