Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Hauser v. Mealey, 263 N.W.2d 803.

148 citing documents.

Khan Turouk v. Nyawan Kuon Dak, United States Department of Agriculture Rural Housing Services Minn. Ct. App. 2023
Consequently, “a plaintiff may not split his cause of action and bring successive suits involving the same set of factual circumstances.”
Lariat Companies Inc. v. Barbara Wigley, Michael Wigley Minn. Ct. App. 2023
(“[Claim preclusion] operate[s] where a subsequent action or suit is predicated on the same cause of action which has been determined by a judgment, no matter what issues were raised or litigated in the original cause of action.” (emphasis added)).
Community Finance Group, Inc. v. Main Street Otsego, LLC, LandCor Companies, Inc., Robert L. Fields, Patricia Fields, ABP, … Minn. Ct. App. 2020
Co. , (quoting Hauser v. Mealey , ).
Philip Carlson, Virginia Carlson v. Minnesota Department of Labor and Industry, Bryan Crane, Karen Crane Minn. Ct. App. 2020
Res judicata is based on the “well-established” principle “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.” Brown-Wilbert, d at 224 (d 803, 806-07 (Minn. 1978) (internal quotation omitted)).
Dustin Ward, et al v. El Rancho Manana, Inc., et al Minn. Ct. App. 2020
Aaron Carlson Corporation, Minn. 2019
Tara Ann Nesmoe-Thompson v. Neil V. Lindemann, et al Minn. Ct. App. 2019
And adopting such a doctrine would make little sense, given that collateral estoppel is intended t o promote judicial efficiency and to prevent a party from being “twice vexed for the same cause.” (quotation omitted); see also Heine v. Simon , (Anderson, Paul H., J., plurality opinion).
Maria Olson, et al v. Christenson Law Office, PLLC, et al Minn. Ct. App. 2018
(“[A] plainti ff may not split his cause of action and bring successive suits involving the same set of factual circumstances.”).
Galyna Anderson v. Melissa Houghtaling, et al Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Under the first collateral- 8 estoppel factor, “the issues must be the same as those involved in the prior action and must have been necessary and essent ial to the resulting judgment.” Hauser v. Mealey
Bert Lawrence Pexsa, et al v. Disabled American Veterans of Minnesota Foundation Minn. Ct. App. 2017
All Finish Concrete, Inc. v. Erickson 899 N.W.2d 557 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
All Finish Concrete, Inc. v. Erickson 899 N.W.2d 557 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
645 , 649 n. 5, 58 L.Ed.2d 552 (1979)
Reichel Investments, L.P. v. Craig A. Reichel Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Reichel Investments, L.P. v. Craig A. Reichel Minn. Ct. App. 2016
In the Matter of the Massage and Bodywork License Application of Kim Yi's, LLC, and Yong Green d/b/a … Minn. Ct. App. 2016
In the Matter of the Massage and Bodywork License Application of Kim Yi's, LLC, and Yong Green d/b/a … Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Myhra v. Park, 193 Minn. 290, 295, 258 N.W.
In the Matter of the Trust Agreement of Eugene L. Johnson u/t/a dated December 22, 2008 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
In the Matter of the Trust Agreement of Eugene L. Johnson u/t/a dated December 22, 2008 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
David J. Mach, Jr. v. Wells Concrete Products Co., and CCMSI, Relators, and Blue Cross Blue Shield, Operating … 866 N.W.2d 921 Minn. 2015
David J. Mach, Jr. v. Wells Concrete Products Co., and CCMSI, Relators, and Blue Cross Blue Shield, Operating … 866 N.W.2d 921 Minn. 2015
Rucker v. Schmidt 794 N.W.2d 114 Minn. 2011
Barth v. Stenwick 761 N.W.2d 502 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
Barth v. Stenwick 761 N.W.2d 502 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
645 , 649 n. 5, 58 L.Ed.2d 552 (1979)
State v. Lemmer 736 N.W.2d 650 Minn. 2007
State v. Lemmer 736 N.W.2d 650 Minn. 2007
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
at 840-41 (analyzing the defense of claim splitting under the res judicata doctrine, concluding that the second action could proceed because the claims were not identical); , 744 n. 1 (Minn.1994) (“Res judicata, or claim preclusion, prevents parties from splitting claims into more than one lawsuit and precludes further litigation of the same claim.”); -08 (Minn.1978) (analyzing the defense of claim splitting under the doctrine of res judicata but declining to apply res judicata to claims that co
Antone v. Mirviss 720 N.W.2d 331 Minn. 2006
Brown-Wilbert, Inc. v. Copeland Buhl & Co., P.L.L.P. 715 N.W.2d 484 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
Brown-Wilbert, Inc. v. Copeland Buhl & Co., P.L.L.P. 715 N.W.2d 484 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
The “merger or bar” principle of the res judicata doctrine operates so 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.” (quotation omitted).
Hauschildt v. Beckingham 686 N.W.2d 829 Minn. 2004
Hauschildt v. Beckingham 686 N.W.2d 829 Minn. 2004
Wilson v. Comm’r of Revenue, -07 (Minn.1978).
Klinefelter v. Crum & Forster Insurance Co. 675 N.W.2d 330 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
Klinefelter v. Crum & Forster Insurance Co. 675 N.W.2d 330 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
In Re Estate of Handy 672 N.W.2d 214 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
In Re Estate of Handy 672 N.W.2d 214 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
Illinois Farmers Insurance Co. v. Glass Service Co. 669 N.W.2d 420 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
Illinois Farmers Insurance Co. v. Glass Service Co. 669 N.W.2d 420 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
(addressing the doctrine of merger and bar).
Fraser v. Fraser 642 N.W.2d 34 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
Fraser v. Fraser 642 N.W.2d 34 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
See, (stating generally that “a judgment rendered by a court which lacks jurisdiction to hear a case does not have the effect of res judica-ta”).
State v. Joseph 636 N.W.2d 322 Minn. 2001
State v. Joseph 636 N.W.2d 322 Minn. 2001
Freightways, Inc., Ellis v. Minneapolis Comm’n on Civil Rights, Bernstein v. Levitz, 223 Minn. 46, 48 , Wolfson v. N. States Mgmt.
SMA Services, Inc. v. Weaver 632 N.W.2d 770 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
SMA Services, Inc. v. Weaver 632 N.W.2d 770 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
Wilson v. Commissioner of Revenue 619 N.W.2d 194 Minn. 2000
Wilson v. Commissioner of Revenue 619 N.W.2d 194 Minn. 2000
This court recognizes “the general rule that a judgment rendered by a court which lacks jurisdiction to hear a case does not have the effect of res judica-ta.”
Michels v. Kozitza 610 N.W.2d 368 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
Michels v. Kozitza 610 N.W.2d 368 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
Kulinski v. Medtronic Bio-Medicus, Inc. 577 N.W.2d 499 Minn. 1998
Kulinski v. Medtronic Bio-Medicus, Inc. 577 N.W.2d 499 Minn. 1998
-09 (Minn.1978); see also Muellenberg v. Joblinski, 188 Minn. 398, 400 , 247 N.W.