Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Hardrives, Inc. v. City of LaCrosse, Wis., 240 N.W.2d 814.

138 citing documents.

Bay & Bay Transfer Co. Inc., d/b/a Bay @ Bay Transportation, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2026
“[I]n doubtful cases, doubts should be resolved in favor of retention of jurisdiction.” Hardrives, see also C.H. Robinson, d at 533 (quotation omitted).
Cole Robert Hooker v. David Sean Kennedy Minn. Ct. App. 2026
Cole Robert Hooker v. David Sean Kennedy Minn. Ct. App. 2026
Any doubts as to jurisdiction must be “resolved in favor of retention of jurisdiction.” Hardrives
Shawn Peters, Respondent, vs. Samsung SDI Co., Ltd., a Korean Corporation, Appellant, Samsung SDI America, Inc., a ... Minn. Ct. App. 2025
Shawn Peters, Respondent, vs. Samsung SDI Co., Ltd., a Korean Corporation, Appellant, Samsung SDI America, Inc., a ... Minn. Ct. App. 2025
Quantity of SDI’s Contacts with Minnesota To sustain a Minnesota court’s exercise of personal jurisdiction, the quantity of a nonresident defendant’s contacts with Minnesota must have been “numerous and fairly frequent or regular in occurrence.” Hardrives
A24-1652 Minn. Ct. App. 2025
Health Care Service Corporation, et al., Respondents, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
Juelich, d at 570; see also Hardrives, (first adopting the five -factor test to determine whether plaintiff has made a prima facie showing of sufficient Minnesota-related contacts).
The Estate of Michael T. Conneran, Jr., Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
11 Appellants also argue that their position is supported by Hardrives, a case in which the supreme court determined that minimum contacts existed.
William H. Davis, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
A ny “doubts” about jurisdiction are “ resolved in favor of retention of jurisdiction.” Hardrives
Vincent Holdings, LLC, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
action with these cont acts; (4) the interest of the state providing a forum; and (5) the convenience of the parties.” Juelich v. Yamazaki Mazak Optonics Corp. , 682 (reiterating and applying the five-factor test where appellants “assert[ed] that Minnesota ha s specific personal jurisdiction over [respondent]”); see also Hardrives, (adopting the five-factor test).
Michael Hosting, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
See Hardrives, (citation omitted).
Michael A. Zimmer, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
Juelich, d at 570; see also Hardrives, (first adopting the five-factor test in Minnesota).
Snap Fitness, Inc., Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
The first three factors assess whether a defendant had sufficient minimum contacts with Minnesota and are the “primary factors.” Hardrives, Inc. v. City of LaCrosse, Wis.
Bandemer v. Ford Motor Co. 931 N.W.2d 744 Minn. 2019
Bandemer v. Ford Motor Co. 931 N.W.2d 744 Minn. 2019
Hardrives, Inc. v. City of LaCrosse , 307 Minn. 290 , , 818 (1976).
Joel Wells, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Id.; Hardrives, d 814, 816 (Minn. 1976).
State of Minnesota, by its Attorney General, Lori Swanson, et al., Respondents, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Corp., 760 F.3d 816, 820 (8th Cir. 2014), and, in a close case, resolve any doubts in favor of retaining jurisdiction, Hardrives, 12
Rebecca Minkoff Apparel, LLC, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Any doubts about jurisdiction are “resolved in favor of retention of jurisdiction.” Hardrives, Inc. v. City of LaC rosse, 307 Minn. 290, 296
Bandemer v. Ford Motor Co. 913 N.W.2d 710 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Bandemer v. Ford Motor Co. 913 N.W.2d 710 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
at 570 ; Hardrives, Inc. v. City of LaCrosse , 307 Minn. 290 , 293, , 816 (1976).
Droel, PLLC, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Hardrives, Inc. v. City of LaCrosse, 307 Minn. 290, 293
Fair Isaac Corporation v. Michael Gordon, Callcredit Information Group Limited Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Fair Isaac Corporation v. Michael Gordon, Callcredit Information Group Limited Minn. Ct. App. 2016
(citing Dent–Air, Inc. v. Beech Mountain Air Serv., Inc., n.1 (Minn. 1983)); Hardrives, Inc. v. City of LaCrosse, 307 Minn. 290, 293
Michael P. Schaefer v. Archdiocese of St. Paul and Minneapolis, Roman Catholic Diocese of Orange Revocable Trust Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Michael P. Schaefer v. Archdiocese of St. Paul and Minneapolis, Roman Catholic Diocese of Orange Revocable Trust Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Hardrives, Inc. v. City of LaCrosse, 307 Minn. 290, 296
Patterson Dental Supply, Inc. v. Theodore Vlamis Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Patterson Dental Supply, Inc. v. Theodore Vlamis Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Hardrives, Inc. v. City of LaCrosse, 307 Minn. 290, 293
Scott Rilley v. MoneyMutual, LLC 884 N.W.2d 321 Minn. 2016
Scott Rilley v. MoneyMutual, LLC 884 N.W.2d 321 Minn. 2016
Marquette Nat’l Hardrives, Inc. v. City of LaCrosse, 307 Minn. 290, 293
Newman-Lakka Cancer Foundation v. Christine E. Briggs Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Newman-Lakka Cancer Foundation v. Christine E. Briggs Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Hardrives, Inc. v. City of LaCrosse, 307 Minn. 290, 293
Scott Rilley v. MoneyMutual, LLC 863 N.W.2d 789 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Scott Rilley v. MoneyMutual, LLC 863 N.W.2d 789 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Hardrives, Inc. v. City of LaCrosse, 307 Minn. 290, 293
Butler v. JLA Industrial Equipment, Inc. 845 N.W.2d 834 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Butler v. JLA Industrial Equipment, Inc. 845 N.W.2d 834 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
“[I]n doubtful cases, doubts should be resolved in favor of retention of jurisdiction.” Hardrives, Inc. v. City of LaCrosse, 307 Minn. 290, 296
JL Schwieters Construction, Inc. v. Goldridge Construction, Inc. 788 N.W.2d 529 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
JL Schwieters Construction, Inc. v. Goldridge Construction, Inc. 788 N.W.2d 529 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
Hardrives, Inc. v. City of La Crosse, 307 Minn. 290, 293
C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc. v. FLS Transportation, Inc. 772 N.W.2d 528 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc. v. FLS Transportation, Inc. 772 N.W.2d 528 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
Hardrives, Inc. v. City of LaCrosse, 307 Minn. 290, 293 , The district court determined that respondent made a prima facie case that Casillas, Geghan, and Winkler consented to personal jurisdiction in Minnesota by signing the CNAs, thus agreeing to *534 the forum-selection clauses therein.
Christian v. Birch 763 N.W.2d 50 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
Christian v. Birch 763 N.W.2d 50 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
(citing Hardrives, Inc. v. City of LaCrosse, Wis., 307 Minn. 290, 293 , ).
Broehm v. Mayo Clinic Rochester 690 N.W.2d 721 Minn. 2005
Juelich v. Yamazaki Mazak Optonics Corp. 682 N.W.2d 565 Minn. 2004
Juelich v. Yamazaki Mazak Optonics Corp. 682 N.W.2d 565 Minn. 2004
(citing Hardrives, Inc. v. City of LaCrosse, Wisconsin, 307 Minn. 290, 293 , ).
Northwest Airlines, Inc. v. Friday 617 N.W.2d 590 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
Northwest Airlines, Inc. v. Friday 617 N.W.2d 590 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
Hardrives, Inc. v. City of LaCrosse, 307 Minn. 290, 293
Viking Engineering & Development, Inc. v. R.S.B. Enterprises, Inc. 608 N.W.2d 166 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
Viking Engineering & Development, Inc. v. R.S.B. Enterprises, Inc. 608 N.W.2d 166 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
Hardrives, Inc. v. City of LaCrosse, 307 Minn. 290, 293
KSTP-FM, LLC v. Specialized Communications, Inc. 602 N.W.2d 919 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
KSTP-FM, LLC v. Specialized Communications, Inc. 602 N.W.2d 919 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
Hardrives, Inc. v. City of LaCrosse, 307 Minn. 290, 293 , TRWL Fin.

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by