Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Kahn v. State, 289 N.W.2d 737.

52 citing documents.

Solvay Hospice House, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2026
7 2011); (noting that the supreme court will not “reverse on appeal a correct decision because it is based on incorrect reasons”).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
reverse on appeal a correct decision simply because it is based on incorrect reasons.” (stating that, if the district court arrives at a correct decision, that decision should not be overturned regardless of the theory upon which it is based).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
“We will not reverse a correct decision by the district court simply because we disagree with its reasoning.” ( ), aff’d on other grounds
State of Minnesota, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2024
“We will not reverse a correct decision by the district court simply because we disagree with its reasoning.” (), aff’d on other grounds
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
a correct decision simply because it is based on incorrect reasons.”
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
As a threshold matter, we observe that it is this court’s responsibility to decide cases in accordance with the law, 6 (Minn. 2017), and that we “will not reverse a correct decision simply because i t is based on incorrect reasons, ”
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
See Bustos, d at 666; (“[An appellate court] will not .
State of Minnesota v. Coleen Joy Peterson Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Coleen Joy Peterson Minn. Ct. App. 2016
(noting that the supreme court will not “reverse on appeal a correct decision simply because it is based on incorrect reasons”); (“We may affirm the district court on any ground, including one not relied on by the district court.”)
Ky Antoinette Word v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Ky Antoinette Word v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Gale Allen Rachuy v. Duluth Police Department Property Room Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Gale Allen Rachuy v. Duluth Police Department Property Room Minn. Ct. App. 2015
reverse on appeal a correct decision simply because it is based on incorrect reasons.”
State v. Franklin 847 N.W.2d 63 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State v. Franklin 847 N.W.2d 63 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
See 1963 Minn. Laws ch. 753, art. 1, at 1194-95; (presuming that statutes relating to same subject have been passed with deliberation and full knowledge of existing legislation on subject and are regarded by lawmakers as parts of connected whole).
State v. Eichers 840 N.W.2d 210 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
State v. Eichers 840 N.W.2d 210 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
(noting, in a civil case, that the supreme court will not “reverse on appeal a correct decision simply because it is based on incorrect reasons”); (“We may affirm the district court on any ground, including one not relied on by the distric
Vangelder v. Johnson 827 N.W.2d 430 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
Vangelder v. Johnson 827 N.W.2d 430 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
State v. Mertz 801 N.W.2d 219 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
State v. Mertz 801 N.W.2d 219 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
(“We will not [ ] reverse ...
American Family Insurance Group v. Kiess 697 N.W.2d 617 Minn. 2005
Lofgren v. Pieper Farms 540 N.W.2d 834 Minn. 1995
Lofgren v. Pieper Farms 540 N.W.2d 834 Minn. 1995
Kahn v. State, University of Minnesota, see 2B Larson, supra § 78.45.
Gilbert v. Star Tribune/Cowles Media 480 N.W.2d 114 Minn. 1992
Gilbert v. Star Tribune/Cowles Media 480 N.W.2d 114 Minn. 1992
Schweich v. Ziegler, Inc. 463 N.W.2d 722 Minn. 1990
Schweich v. Ziegler, Inc. 463 N.W.2d 722 Minn. 1990
Swanson Ex Rel. Swanson v. Fairway Foods 439 N.W.2d 722 Minn. 1989
Swanson Ex Rel. Swanson v. Fairway Foods 439 N.W.2d 722 Minn. 1989
Marriage of Katz v. Katz 408 N.W.2d 835 Minn. 1987
Marriage of Katz v. Katz 408 N.W.2d 835 Minn. 1987
Theorin v. Ditec Corp. 377 N.W.2d 437 Minn. 1985
Theorin v. Ditec Corp. 377 N.W.2d 437 Minn. 1985
While this court has adopted an estoppel analysis in other cases dealing with the Workers’ Compensation Act, (employer estopped from asserting statute of limitations by its representation to employee that he would receive equivalent benefits under a group disability policy); (employer estopped from raising delay in filing of formal notice to bar employee’s claim where delay was induced by employer’s agent), it has yet to consider the issue under section 176.021, subd.
Freese v. Carl's Service 375 N.W.2d 484 Minn. 1985
Freese v. Carl's Service 375 N.W.2d 484 Minn. 1985
Neuberger v. Hennepin County Workhouse 340 N.W.2d 330 Minn. 1983
Neuberger v. Hennepin County Workhouse 340 N.W.2d 330 Minn. 1983
we held that where an agent of the employer misled the employee’s husband into believing her injury was not compensable, and the em *332 ployee failed to file a timely claim as a result, the employer was estopped from asserting the time bar.
Milbank Mutual Insurance Co. v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. 332 N.W.2d 160 Minn. 1983
Milbank Mutual Insurance Co. v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. 332 N.W.2d 160 Minn. 1983
Schoeb v. Cowles, 279 Minn. 331, 336
Kahn v. State, University of Minnesota 327 N.W.2d 21 Minn. 1982
Kahn v. State, University of Minnesota 327 N.W.2d 21 Minn. 1982
Eventually the case reached this court and we, sustained Mrs. Kahn’s claim against the state.
Koch v. Arnesen 322 N.W.2d 362 Minn. 1982
Schander v. Northern States Power Company 320 N.W.2d 84 Minn. 1982
Schander v. Northern States Power Company 320 N.W.2d 84 Minn. 1982
16 (1980); Satack v. State, Department of Public Safety
Smith v. Armour and Co. 316 N.W.2d 925 Minn. 1982
Smith v. Armour and Co. 316 N.W.2d 925 Minn. 1982
Stolpa v. Swanson Heavy Moving Co. 315 N.W.2d 615 Minn. 1982
Stolpa v. Swanson Heavy Moving Co. 315 N.W.2d 615 Minn. 1982

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by