Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Nadeau v. County of Ramsey, 277 N.W.2d 520.

106 citing documents.

In re the Matter of: Minn. Ct. App. 2025
Only a clear abuse of that discretion will result in reversal.” Citizens State Bank v. Raven Trading Partners, Inc., (quoting Nadeau) (alterations omitted).
In re the Estate of Irvin John Cooper, Sr., Deceased. Minn. Ct. App. 2025
Joy Litke, et al., Respondents, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
See, - 24 (Minn. 2011) (reviewing district court’s equitable-estoppel decision after bench trial for an abuse of discretion); Citizens State Bank v. Raven Trading Partners, Inc., (reviewing district court’s equitable-subrogation decision for an abuse of discretion); (reviewing district court’s decision on motion for equitable relief for an abuse of discretion); City of Cloquet v. Cloquet Sand & Gravel, Inc., (“The standard of review in nuisance cases and others involving equitable relief is whet
Kimi Bragdon, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
Saint Paul Building LLC v. Commonwealth Properties Incorporated, John Rupp, ... Minn. Ct. App. 2024
Saint Paul Building LLC v. Commonwealth Properties Incorporated, John Rupp, ... Minn. Ct. App. 2024
“A district court’s exercise of its equitable powers is reviewed for an abuse of discretion.” Cole, d at 339; (“Granting equitable relief is within the sound discretion of the [district] court.
Fern Hill Place Homeowners Association, Inc., Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
David Carl Hepfl, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
Unjust enrichment is an 5 equitable remedy, Southtown Plumbing, and we review a district court’s order granting equitable relief for an abuse of discretion
Roger Dean Olson, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
Only a clear abuse of that discretion will result in reversal.” see Citizens State Bank v. Raven Trading Partners, Inc.
In the Matter of the Petition of: Minn. Ct. App. 2023
See Citizens State Bank v. Raven Trading Partners, Inc., n.2 (Minn. 2010); Melrose Gates, d at 820-21 (declining to extend Citizens State Bank); (“Granting equitable relief is within the sound discretion of the trial court.
Jonathan G. Foss, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
SCI Minn. Funeral Servs., ().
Shanon Renee Harper, DNP, NP, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
Only a clear abuse of that discretion will result in reversal.”
Faricy Law Firm, PA, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Quantum meruit is equitable relief that is “within the sound discretion 4 of the [district] court.” (citation omitted).
James C. Holmes, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
See In re Estate of Savich , (stating a constructive trust is an equitable remedy); (stating that granting equitable remedies is within the sound discretion of district courts, and only clear abuse of the discretion warrants reversal).
Kristin M. Schumacher, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Nadeau v. County of Ramsey , see also Swogger v. 3 We note that Kruse was decided before the promulgation of the Minnesota Rules of Civil Procedure, which requires litigants to bring some compulsory counterclaims.
In re the Estate of Clara Mae Murphy Minn. Ct. App. 2017
In re the Estate of Clara Mae Murphy Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Lawrence Leasing, Inc., d/b/a Lawrence Transportation Services v. Northwoods Pallets, LLC Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Lawrence Leasing, Inc., d/b/a Lawrence Transportation Services v. Northwoods Pallets, LLC Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Melrose Gates, LLC v. Chor Moua 875 N.W.2d 814 Minn. 2016
John W. Conzemius v. David J. Finnegan Minn. Ct. App. 2016
John W. Conzemius v. David J. Finnegan Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Guava LLC, Judgment Debtors, Paul Hansmeier v. Spencer Merkel, Qwest Communications Corporation, Judgment Creditors, John Doe 173.19.225.244 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Guava LLC, Judgment Debtors, Paul Hansmeier v. Spencer Merkel, Qwest Communications Corporation, Judgment Creditors, John Doe 173.19.225.244 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Diversified Water Diversion, Inc. v. Hogenson Properties, Ltd. Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Diversified Water Diversion, Inc. v. Hogenson Properties, Ltd. Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Melrose Gates, LLC v. Chor Moua Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Melrose Gates, LLC v. Chor Moua Minn. Ct. App. 2015
of Ramsey, see also Citizens State Bank v. Raven Trading Partner, Inc., d 274, 277 n.2 (Minn. 2010) (reviewing grant of summary judgment involving equitable subrogation for abuse of discretion).
David P. Cook v. Wendi C. Wicktor-Heinks Minn. Ct. App. 2014
David P. Cook v. Wendi C. Wicktor-Heinks Minn. Ct. App. 2014
A district court has broad discretion when fashioning an equitable remedy, and we review these equitable determinations for an abuse of that discretion, -99 (Minn. App. 1986).
State ex rel. Swan Lake Area Wildlife Ass'n v. Nicollet County Board of County Commissioners 799 N.W.2d 619 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
State ex rel. Swan Lake Area Wildlife Ass'n v. Nicollet County Board of County Commissioners 799 N.W.2d 619 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
City of North Oaks v. Sarpal 797 N.W.2d 18 Minn. 2011
City of North Oaks v. Sarpal 797 N.W.2d 18 Minn. 2011
of Ramsey, (motion for reinstatement following grant of motion for new *24 trial).
SCI Minnesota Funeral Services, Inc. v. Washburn-McReavy Funeral Corp. 795 N.W.2d 855 Minn. 2011
SCI Minnesota Funeral Services, Inc. v. Washburn-McReavy Funeral Corp. 795 N.W.2d 855 Minn. 2011
of Ramsey, (applying an abuse of discretion standard to a trial court’s denial of rescission as an equitable relief after trial).
Citizens State Bank v. Raven Trading Partners, Inc. 786 N.W.2d 274 Minn. 2010
Citizens State Bank v. Raven Trading Partners, Inc. 786 N.W.2d 274 Minn. 2010
We have previously said, however, that “[gjranting equitable relief is within the sound discretion of the trial court [and] [o]nly a clear abuse of that discretion will result in reversal.” accord City of Cloquet v. Cloquet Sand & Gravel, Inc., 312 Minn. 277, 279 , (“The standard of review in nuisance cases and others involving equitable relief is whether the trial court has abused its discretion.”).
First Minnesota Bank v. Overby Development, Inc. 783 N.W.2d 405 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
First Minnesota Bank v. Overby Development, Inc. 783 N.W.2d 405 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
Only a clear abuse of that discretion will result in reversal.”
SCI Minnesota Funeral Services, Inc. v. Washburn-McReavy Funeral Corp. 779 N.W.2d 865 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
SCI Minnesota Funeral Services, Inc. v. Washburn-McReavy Funeral Corp. 779 N.W.2d 865 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
Gabler v. Fedoruk 756 N.W.2d 725 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
Peterson v. Holiday Recreational Industries, Inc. 726 N.W.2d 499 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
Peterson v. Holiday Recreational Industries, Inc. 726 N.W.2d 499 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
It is within the district court’s discretion to' grant equitable relief and “[o]nly a clear abuse of that discretion will result in reversal!.]”
TCM PROPERTIES, LLC v. Gunderson 720 N.W.2d 344 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
TCM PROPERTIES, LLC v. Gunderson 720 N.W.2d 344 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
Ripley v. Piehl 700 N.W.2d 540 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
Ripley v. Piehl 700 N.W.2d 540 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
TIMELINE, LLC v. Williams Holdings 3, LLC 698 N.W.2d 181 Minn. Ct. App. 2005