Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Shimp Ex Rel. Shimp v. Sederstrom, 233 N.W.2d 292.

34 citing documents.

Ray Danielson, Relator, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
Kristopher Lee Roybal, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
Res judicata achieves finality based upon the notion that “a party should not be twice vexed for the same cause, and that it is for the public good that there be an end to litigation .” d 292, 294 (Minn. 1975).
Brown-Wilbert, Inc. v. Copeland Buhl & Co. 732 N.W.2d 209 Minn. 2007
Brown-Wilbert, Inc. v. Copeland Buhl & Co. 732 N.W.2d 209 Minn. 2007
Hauser, d at 806 -07 (quoting Shimp v. Sederstrom, 305 Minn. 267, 270 , ).
Wilson v. Commissioner of Revenue 619 N.W.2d 194 Minn. 2000
Wilson v. Commissioner of Revenue 619 N.W.2d 194 Minn. 2000
Res judicata exists “in order to relieve parties of the burden of relitigat-ing issues already determined in a prior action, that a party may not be ‘twice vexed for the same cause.’” Beutz, d at 531 (quoting Shimp v. Sederstrom, 305 Minn. 267, 270 , ).
Porta-Mix Concrete, Inc. v. First Insurance East Grand Forks 512 N.W.2d 119 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
Porta-Mix Concrete, Inc. v. First Insurance East Grand Forks 512 N.W.2d 119 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
Smith Harvestore Prods., (citing Shimp v. Sederstrom, 305 Minn. 267, 270 , ).
Myers Through Myers v. Price 463 N.W.2d 773 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
Myers Through Myers v. Price 463 N.W.2d 773 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
Smith Harvestore Prods., Inc., (quoting Shimp v. Sederstrom, 305 Minn. 267, 270 , ).
Beutz v. A.O. Smith Harvestore Products, Inc. 431 N.W.2d 528 Minn. 1988
Beutz v. A.O. Smith Harvestore Products, Inc. 431 N.W.2d 528 Minn. 1988
2 The doctrine of res judicata exists in order to relieve parties of the burden of relitigating issues already determined in a prior action, that a party may not be “twice vexed for the same cause.” Shimp v. Sederstrom, 305 Minn. 267, 270
Gulbranson v. Gulbranson 408 N.W.2d 216 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Ernst v. Ernst 408 N.W.2d 679 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Ernst v. Ernst 408 N.W.2d 679 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Skimp v. Sederstrom, 305 Minn. 267, 270
Gulbranson v. Gulbranson 408 N.W.2d 216 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Keith Gulbranson “should not be twice vexed for the same cause, and * * * it is for the public good that there be an end to litigation.” Shimp v. Sederstrom, 305 Minn. 267, 270
Cook v. Connolly 353 N.W.2d 184 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Cook v. Connolly 353 N.W.2d 184 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
This has been applied as follows in Minnesota, as stated in Shimp v. Sederstrom, 305 Minn. 267 , -95 (1975): One of the requirements for the application of the doctrine of collateral estoppel, also known as estoppel by verdict, is that the issue sought to be litigated in the second action must have been litigated and determined in a prior action.
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
Skimp v. Sederstrom, 305 Minn. 267
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 the Hauser case the Minnesota Supreme Court said: It is well established in Minnesota that a party “should not be twice vexed for the same cause, and that it is for the public good that there be an end to litigation.” Shimp v. Sederstrom, 305 Minn. 267, 270
Transamerica Insurance Group v. Paul 267 N.W.2d 180 Minn. 1978
Transamerica Insurance Group v. Paul 267 N.W.2d 180 Minn. 1978
See, Shimp v. Sederstrom, 305 Minn. 267 , Sachs v. Jenista, 296 Minn. 535 , 10B Dunnell, Dig.
Hauser v. Mealey 263 N.W.2d 803 Minn. 1978
Hauser v. Mealey 263 N.W.2d 803 Minn. 1978
It is well established in Minnesota that a party “should not be twice vexed for the same cause, and that it is for the public good that there be an end to litigation.” Shimp v. Sederstrom, 305 Minn. 267, 270
Price v. Amdal 256 N.W.2d 461 Minn. 1977
Price v. Amdal 256 N.W.2d 461 Minn. 1977
See, Shimp v. Sederstrom, 305 Minn. 267 , The Travelers Insurance Co. v. Thompson, 281 Minn. 547 , appeal dismissed, 395 U.S. 161 , 89 S.Ct.
In Re Village of Byron 255 N.W.2d 226 Minn. 1977
In Re Village of Byron 255 N.W.2d 226 Minn. 1977
Shimp v. Sederstrom, 305 Minn. 267, 270
Carlson v. Yellow Cab Co. 242 N.W.2d 86 Minn. 1976
Carlson v. Yellow Cab Co. 242 N.W.2d 86 Minn. 1976
In our opinion, this case is controlled by Shimp v. Sederstrom, 305 Minn. 267 , and Abraham v. Sederstrom, 305 Minn. 273 , two cases involving the same two-car accident.
Abraham Ex Rel. Abraham v. Sederstrom 233 N.W.2d 296 Minn. 1975
Abraham Ex Rel. Abraham v. Sederstrom 233 N.W.2d 296 Minn. 1975
This case arose out of the same automobile accident as that involved in Shimp v. Sederstrom, 305 Minn. 267