Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Milkovich v. Saari, 203 N.W.2d 408.

93 citing documents.

A23-1267 Minn. Ct. App. 2024
Carley Pesente v. Minnesota Life Insurance Company Minn. Ct. App. 2024
Carley Pesente v. Minnesota Life Insurance Company Minn. Ct. App. 2024
Steve Quest v. Nicholas Robert Rekieta Minn. Ct. App. 2024
Steve Quest v. Nicholas Robert Rekieta Minn. Ct. App. 2024
Nicol Nagel, individually and ESY Investments, LLC, a California limited liability company v. Tracy A. Westen 865 N.W.2d 325 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Nicol Nagel, individually and ESY Investments, LLC, a California limited liability company v. Tracy A. Westen 865 N.W.2d 325 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State v. Castillo-Alvarez 836 N.W.2d 527 Minn. 2013
State v. Castillo-Alvarez 836 N.W.2d 527 Minn. 2013
295 Minn. 155 , (abandoning the “outmoded” lex loci rule in favor of a better rule of law analysis).
Kolberg-Pioneer, Inc. v. Belgrade Steel Tank Co. 823 N.W.2d 669 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
Kolberg-Pioneer, Inc. v. Belgrade Steel Tank Co. 823 N.W.2d 669 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
These considerations are “(1) predictability of result; (2) maintenance of interstate and international order; (3) simplification of the judicial task; (4) advancement of the forum’s governmental interest; and (5) application of the better rule of law.” Jepson, d at 470 (citing Milkovich v. Saari, 295 Minn. 155,161 , ).
Fleeger v. Wyeth 771 N.W.2d 524 Minn. 2009
Fleeger v. Wyeth 771 N.W.2d 524 Minn. 2009
The legislature’s impression that our choice-of-law jurisprudence was changing arose in part from our decision in Milkovich v. Saari, 295 Minn. 155
Christian v. Birch 763 N.W.2d 50 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
Christian v. Birch 763 N.W.2d 50 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
ly applied, the district court then analyzes five choice-influencing factors to determine which state’s law governs: “(1) predictability of result; (2) maintenance of interstate and international order; (3) simplification of the judicial task; (4) advancement of the forum’s governmental interest; and (5) application of the better rule of law.” Jepson, d at 470 (citing Milkovich v. Saari, 295 Minn. 155, 161 , ).
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
See Milkovich v. Saari, 295 Minn. 155, 162 , (noting rejection of vested rights approach in choice-of-law cases).
State v. Heaney 689 N.W.2d 168 Minn. 2004
State v. Heaney 689 N.W.2d 168 Minn. 2004
Heaney, d at 707 (citing Milkovich v. Saari, 295 Minn. 155, 164 , (holding that, in the context of civil tort actions, Minnesota courts will look to the “better rule of law” rather than lex loci, the law of the place)).
State v. Heaney 676 N.W.2d 698 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
State v. Heaney 676 N.W.2d 698 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
Milkovich v. Saari, 295 Minn. 155, 164
Peterson v. BASF Corp. 675 N.W.2d 57 Minn. 2004
Peterson v. BASF Corp. 675 N.W.2d 57 Minn. 2004
BASF argued that class certification was inappropriate because a detailed choice of law analysis was in order using Minnesota’s “significant contacts” test, set forth in Milkovich v. Saari, 295 Minn. 155 , and because different states’ consumer protection laws required those laws to be applied wherever Poast and Poast Plus were purchased or applied.
Danielson v. National Supply Co. 670 N.W.2d 1 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
Danielson v. National Supply Co. 670 N.W.2d 1 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
This analysis was initially adopted in Milkovich v. Saari, 295 Minn. 155
Cargill, Inc. v. Evanston Insurance Co. 642 N.W.2d 80 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
Cargill, Inc. v. Evanston Insurance Co. 642 N.W.2d 80 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
See Milkovich v. Saari, 295 Minn. 155, 164-171 , -17 (1973) (listing the five factors to be considered when choosing the applicable law as: (1) predictability of' results, (2) maintenance of interstate order, (3) advancement of the forum’s governmental interests, (4) application of the better rule of law, and (5) simplification of the j
Medtronic, Inc. v. Advanced Bionics Corp. 630 N.W.2d 438 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
Medtronic, Inc. v. Advanced Bionics Corp. 630 N.W.2d 438 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
Jepson, d at 470 (citing Milkovich v. Saari, 295 Minn. 155, 161 , ).
Boatwright v. Budak 625 N.W.2d 483 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
Boatwright v. Budak 625 N.W.2d 483 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
Jepson, d at 470 ; Milkovich v. Saari, 295 Minn. 155,161
Nodak Mutual Insurance Co. v. American Family Mutual Insurance Co. 604 N.W.2d 91 Minn. 2000
Nodak Mutual Insurance Co. v. American Family Mutual Insurance Co. 604 N.W.2d 91 Minn. 2000
Nodak argues that the court of appeals’ adoption of the reasoning in Farmers heralds a return to the doctrine of lex loci, which holds that “the happening of an accident in any particular forum estab-lishe[s] that the law of- the place of the accident [will] apply.” Milkovich v. Saari, 295 Minn. 155, 157-58
Nodak Mutual Insurance Co. v. American Family Mutual Insurance Co. 590 N.W.2d 670 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
Nodak Mutual Insurance Co. v. American Family Mutual Insurance Co. 590 N.W.2d 670 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
(citing Milkovich v. Saari, 295 Minn. 155, 161 , ).
Reed v. University of North Dakota 543 N.W.2d 106 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
Reed v. University of North Dakota 543 N.W.2d 106 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
The third step in a choice of law analysis involves balancing the factors of Milkovich v. Saari, 295 Minn. 155
Women of the State v. Gomez 542 N.W.2d 17 Minn. 1995
Women of the State v. Gomez 542 N.W.2d 17 Minn. 1995
See Milkovich v. Saari, 295 Minn. 155, 166-67
Lommen v. City of East Grand Forks 522 N.W.2d 148 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
Lommen v. City of East Grand Forks 522 N.W.2d 148 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
Milkovich v. Saari, 295 Minn. 155, 161
Jepson v. General Casualty Co. of Wisconsin 513 N.W.2d 467 Minn. 1994
Jepson v. General Casualty Co. of Wisconsin 513 N.W.2d 467 Minn. 1994
Having concluded that there is a conflict between Minnesota and North Dakota law and that either may be constitutionally applied, we next look to the five choice influencing factors set out in Milkovich v. Saari, 295 Minn. 155
BD. OF REGENTS OF U. OF M. v. Royal Ins. 503 N.W.2d 486 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
BD. OF REGENTS OF U. OF M. v. Royal Ins. 503 N.W.2d 486 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
To resolve a choice-of-law issue, the court must apply the five factors set forth in Milkovich v. Saari, 295 Minn. 155
Board of Regents of University of Minnesota v. Royal Insurance Co. of America 503 N.W.2d 486 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
Board of Regents of University of Minnesota v. Royal Insurance Co. of America 503 N.W.2d 486 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
To resolve a choice-of-law issue, the court must apply the five factors set forth in Milkovich v. Saari, 295 Minn. 155
Kearns v. American Family Insurance Group 486 N.W.2d 796 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
Kearns v. American Family Insurance Group 486 N.W.2d 796 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
As no conflict exists here, we find it unnecessary to proceed in the choice-of-law analysis to examine the five choice-of-law considerations set forth in Milkovich v. Saari, 295 Minn. 155, 161
Zaretsky v. Molecular Biosystems, Inc. 464 N.W.2d 546 Minn. Ct. App. 1990