Cited by

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

148 citing documents.

Franklin Auto Body Co. v. Wicker 414 N.W.2d 509 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Mendota Heights Associates v. Friel 414 N.W.2d 480 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Knutson v. DJM Transport, Inc. 413 N.W.2d 598 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Knutson v. DJM Transport, Inc. 413 N.W.2d 598 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Riverbluff Development Co. v. Insurance Co. of North America 412 N.W.2d 792 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Riverbluff Development Co. v. Insurance Co. of North America 412 N.W.2d 792 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Hofstad v. Hargest 412 N.W.2d 5 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Hofstad v. Hargest 412 N.W.2d 5 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
The first, also known as estoppel by judgment, serves as an absolute bar to a subsequent suit on the same cause of action both as to matters actually litigated and as to other claims or defenses that might have been litigated.
Walden Bros. Lumber, Inc. v. Wiggin 408 N.W.2d 675 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Gulbranson v. Gulbranson 408 N.W.2d 216 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Gulbranson v. Gulbranson 408 N.W.2d 216 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Walden Bros. Lumber, Inc. v. Wiggin 408 N.W.2d 675 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Marriage of Vogt v. Vogt 394 N.W.2d 625 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Marriage of Vogt v. Vogt 394 N.W.2d 625 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
: The effect of res judicata on a judgment or final order has at least two distinct and important aspects: (1) merger or bar; and (2) collateral estoppel.
McBroom v. Al-Chroma, Inc. 386 N.W.2d 369 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
McBroom v. Al-Chroma, Inc. 386 N.W.2d 369 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
645 , 649 n. 5, 58 L.Ed.2d (1979)
Cole v. Paulson 380 N.W.2d 215 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Cole v. Paulson 380 N.W.2d 215 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Marriage of Lindsey v. Lindsey 369 N.W.2d 26 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Marriage of Lindsey v. Lindsey 369 N.W.2d 26 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Cook v. Con *30 nolly, , (Minn.1985)
Liedtke v. Fillenworth 372 N.W.2d 50 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Liedtke v. Fillenworth 372 N.W.2d 50 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Green v. Independent Consolidated School District No. 1, 256 Minn. 185, 187-88
State Ex Rel. Ondracek v. Blohm 363 N.W.2d 113 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Roseberg v. Steen 363 N.W.2d 102 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
State Ex Rel. Ondracek v. Blohm 363 N.W.2d 113 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Roseberg v. Steen 363 N.W.2d 102 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Mattsen v. Packman 358 N.W.2d 48 Minn. 1984
Mattsen v. Packman 358 N.W.2d 48 Minn. 1984
quoting The Youngstown Mines Corp. v. Prout, 266 Minn. 450, 466 , Velina v. Dahlquist, 64 Minn. 119, 121 , 66 N.W.
Cook v. Connolly 353 N.W.2d 184 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Cook v. Connolly 353 N.W.2d 184 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
-573 (Minn.Ct.App.1984).
Dollar Travel Agency, Inc. v. Northwest Airlines, Inc. 354 N.W.2d 880 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Dollar Travel Agency, Inc. v. Northwest Airlines, Inc. 354 N.W.2d 880 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
In Re Guardianship of Huesman 354 N.W.2d 860 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
In Re Guardianship of Huesman 354 N.W.2d 860 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
(county courts are courts of limited jurisdiction); (probate court has jurisdiction to exercise powers which are necessary to carry out expressly-conferred powers); In re Robert’s Estate, 202 Minn. 217, 221 , 277 N.W.
Bifulk v. Evans 353 N.W.2d 258 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Bifulk v. Evans 353 N.W.2d 258 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Kaiser v. Northern States Power Co. 353 N.W.2d 899 Minn. 1984
Kaiser v. Northern States Power Co. 353 N.W.2d 899 Minn. 1984
645 , 649 n. 5, 58 L.Ed.2d 552 (1979); -07 (Minn.1978).
American Druggists Insurance v. Thompson Lumber Co. 349 N.W.2d 569 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
American Druggists Insurance v. Thompson Lumber Co. 349 N.W.2d 569 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Nelson v. Engen 347 N.W.2d 57 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Nelson v. Engen 347 N.W.2d 57 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
citing The Youngstown Mines Cory.
Ellis v. Minneapolis Commission on Civil Rights 319 N.W.2d 702 Minn. 1982
Ellis v. Minneapolis Commission on Civil Rights 319 N.W.2d 702 Minn. 1982
3 .Collateral estoppel has also been referred to as “estoppel by verdict,” Howe v. Nelson, 271 Minn. 296 , and, as “issue preclusion,”
DeCosse v. Armstrong Cork Co. 319 N.W.2d 45 Minn. 1982
DeCosse v. Armstrong Cork Co. 319 N.W.2d 45 Minn. 1982
2 *47 Where an action is dismissed on summary judgment, the facts asserted by the plaintiff are taken to be true for purposes of appeal, therefore, what follow are essentially the facts as alleged by the appellant.
Brown v. State Automobile & Casualty Underwriters 293 N.W.2d 822 Minn. 1980
Brown v. State Automobile & Casualty Underwriters 293 N.W.2d 822 Minn. 1980
Abraham v. Sederstrom, 305 Minn. 273, 275