Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Hoff v. Kempton, 317 N.W.2d 361.

377 citing documents.

Myth Live II Inc., Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
n.2 (Minn. 1982) (“[W]here a nonresident defendant challenges jurisdiction, plaintiff has the burden of proving that minimum contacts exist.
In re the Marriage of: Michael Robert Jacobson, petitioner, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
at 334-35 ( n.2 (Minn. 1982)).
Health Care Service Corporation, et al., Respondents, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
at 334; n.2 (Minn. 1982) (“[I]f a motion to dismiss is supported by affidavits, the nonmoving party cannot rely on general statements in his pleading .
Dennis Sershen, Minn. 2022
But our “[s]ummary affirmances have no precedential value because they do not commit the court to any particular point of view.”
Vincent Holdings, LLC, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
We therefore look to the complaint and the Francis affidavit, accepting as true the allegations in those documents.1 1 Kastl initially argued that the district cour t improperly relied on the allegations in the complaint, n.2 (Minn. 1982) (“[I]f a motion to dismiss is supported by affidavits, the nonmoving party cannot rely on general statements in his pleading.” (quotation omitted)).
Oseland by Oseland v. Crow Wing County 928 N.W.2d 744 Minn. 2019
Oseland by Oseland v. Crow Wing County 928 N.W.2d 744 Minn. 2019
Safety , , 414 & nn.5-6 (Minn. 2007) ; Hoff v. Kempton , , 363-64 (Minn. 1982).
Hudson v. Trillium Staffing 925 N.W.2d 254 Minn. 2019
Hudson v. Trillium Staffing 925 N.W.2d 254 Minn. 2019
See Hoff v. Kempton , , 366 (Minn. 1982) ("Summary affirmances have no precedential value because they do not commit the court to any particular point of view.
Washek v. New Dimensions Home Healthcare 923 N.W.2d 42 Minn. 2019
Washek v. New Dimensions Home Healthcare 923 N.W.2d 42 Minn. 2019
See Hoff v. Kempton , , 366 (Minn. 1982) (explaining that "[s]ummary affirmances have no precedential value because they do not commit the court to any particular point of view," doing no more than establishing the law of the case).
Grace v. Smith Foundry Co. 923 N.W.2d 1 Minn. 2019
Grace v. Smith Foundry Co. 923 N.W.2d 1 Minn. 2019
366 (Minn. 1982) (summary dispositions "have no precedential value because they do not commit the court to any particular point of view," doing no more than establishing the law of the case).
Johnson v. A Touch of Class Painting, Inc. 922 N.W.2d 720 Minn. 2019
Johnson v. Skil-Tech, Inc. 922 N.W.2d 721 Minn. 2019
Johnson v. Univ. Good Samaritan 922 N.W.2d 719 Minn. 2019
Johnson v. Univ. Good Samaritan 922 N.W.2d 719 Minn. 2019
See Hoff v. Kempton , , 366 (Minn. 1982) (summary dispositions have no precedential value because they do not commit the court to any particular point of view, doing no more than establishing the law of the case).
Johnson v. A Touch of Class Painting, Inc. 922 N.W.2d 720 Minn. 2019
See Hoff v. Kempton , , 366 (Minn. 1982) (summary dispositions have no precedential value because they do not commit the court to any particular point of view, doing no more than establishing the law of the case).
Johnson v. Skil-Tech, Inc. 922 N.W.2d 721 Minn. 2019
See Hoff v. Kempton , , 366 (Minn. 1982) (summary dispositions have no precedential value because they do not commit the court to any particular point of view, doing no more than establishing the law of the case).
Dennis Lougee, et al., Appellants, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
In support of his argument, as well as a pair of criminal cases, State v. Mullen
May v. ISD 115 922 N.W.2d 208 Minn. 2019
May v. ISD 115 922 N.W.2d 208 Minn. 2019
See Hoff v. Kempton , , 366 (Minn. 1982) (explaining that summary dispositions have no precedential value because they do not commit the court to any particular point of view, doing no more than establishing the law of the case).
Krumwiede v. GGNSC Slayton, LLC 921 N.W.2d 763 Minn. 2019
Krumwiede v. GGNSC Slayton, LLC 921 N.W.2d 763 Minn. 2019
See Hoff v.Kempton , , 366 (Minn. 1982) (explaining that "[s]ummary affirmances have no precedential value because they do not commit the court to any particular point of view," doing no more than establishing the law of the case).
Forrest v. Children's Hosps. & Clinics of Minn. 921 N.W.2d 555 Minn. 2019
James v. Duluth Clinic 921 N.W.2d 555 Minn. 2019
Forrest v. Children's Hosps. & Clinics of Minn. 921 N.W.2d 555 Minn. 2019
See Hoff v. Kempton , , 366 (Minn. 1982) ("Summary affirmances have no precedential value because they do not commit the court to any particular point of view," doing no more than establishing the law of the case).
James v. Duluth Clinic 921 N.W.2d 555 Minn. 2019
See Hoff v. Kempton , , 366 (Minn. 1982) (explaining that "[s]ummary affirmances have no precedential value because they do not commit the court to any particular point of view," doing no more than establishing the law of the case).
Rogers v. Compass Airlines, Inc. 920 N.W.2d 835 Minn. 2018
Rogers v. Compass Airlines, Inc. 920 N.W.2d 835 Minn. 2018
See Hoff v. Kempton , , 366 (Minn. 1982) (explaining that summary dispositions "have no precedential value because they do not commit the court to *836 any particular point of view," doing no more than establishing the law of the case).
Joel Wells, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
n.2 (Minn. 1982), in concluding that respondent “met his burden to challenge the personal jurisdiction.” In Hoff, the plaintiff utilized an uncon stitutional means of establish ing quasi-in-rem jurisdiction.
Lein v. Eventide & Meadowbrook Claims Servs. 917 N.W.2d 771 Minn. 2018
Lein v. Eventide & Meadowbrook Claims Servs. 917 N.W.2d 771 Minn. 2018
See Hoff v. Kempton , , 366 (Minn. 1982) (explaining that "[s]ummary affirmances have no precedential value because they do not commit the court to any particular point of view," instead doing no more than establishing the law of the case).
Hudson v. Trillium Staffing & XL Ins. 913 N.W.2d 463 Minn. 2018
Hudson v. Trillium Staffing & XL Ins. 913 N.W.2d 463 Minn. 2018
See Hoff v. Kempton , , 366 (Minn. 1982) (summary dispositions have no precedential value because they do not commit the court to any particular point of view doing no more than establishing the law of the case).
Gerardy v. Anagram Int'l & Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. 910 N.W.2d 743 Minn. 2018
Gerardy v. Anagram Int'l & Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. 910 N.W.2d 743 Minn. 2018
366 (Minn. 1982) (summary dispositions have no precedential value because they do not commit the court to any particular point of view doing no more than establishing the law of the case).
Leal v. Knife River Corp. 909 N.W.2d 595 Minn. 2018
Leal v. Knife River Corp. 909 N.W.2d 595 Minn. 2018
See Hoff v. Kempton , , 366 (Minn. 1982) ("Summary affirmances have no precedential value because they do not commit the court to any particular point of view.
Fisher v. Jim Lupient Auto Mall 904 N.W.2d 447 Minn. 2017
Fisher v. Jim Lupient Auto Mall 904 N.W.2d 447 Minn. 2017
(explaining that “[s]ummary affirmances have no precedential value because they do not commit the court to any particular point of view,” doing no more than establishing the law of the case).
Scott Rilley v. MoneyMutual, LLC 884 N.W.2d 321 Minn. 2016
Scott Rilley v. MoneyMutual, LLC 884 N.W.2d 321 Minn. 2016
d 361, 363 n.2 (Minn. 1982) (“[I]f [the defendant’s] motion to dismiss is supported by affidavits, the nonmoving party cannot rely on general statements in his pleading.”).
Adelbys Tamayo Lopez, Relator v. JBS USA, LLC, and Zurich American Insurance Co./Sedgwick CMS, Inc., and Sanford Health, … 877 N.W.2d 516 Minn. 2016
Adelbys Tamayo Lopez, Relator v. JBS USA, LLC, and Zurich American Insurance Co./Sedgwick CMS, Inc., and Sanford Health, … 877 N.W.2d 516 Minn. 2016
(explaining that "[s]ummary affirmances have no precedential value because they do not commit the court to any particular point of view," doing no more than establishing the law of the case).
Leanda Muhonen, Relator v. New Horizon Academy and Travelers Indemnity Company of America, Suburban Radiologic Consultants, UCare, Center … 874 N.W.2d 243 Minn. 2016
Joan Van Riper, Employee-Respondent/Cross-Appellant v. Interstate Packaging, Inc. Employer-Relator/Cross-Appeal and Cincinnati Insurance Company, Insurer-Relator/Cross-Appeal and Mason City Clinic, … Minn. 2016
Joan Van Riper, Employee-Respondent/Cross-Appellant v. Interstate Packaging, Inc. Employer-Relator/Cross-Appeal and Cincinnati Insurance Company, Insurer-Relator/Cross-Appeal and Mason City Clinic, … Minn. 2016
Kempton, (explaining that "[s]ummary affnmances have no precedential value because they do not commit the court to any particular point of view," doing no more than establishing the law of the case).
Leanda Muhonen, Relator v. New Horizon Academy and Travelers Indemnity Company of America, Suburban Radiologic Consultants, UCare, Center … 874 N.W.2d 243 Minn. 2016
Kempton, (explaining that "[s]ummary affirmances have no precedential value because they do not commit the court to any particular point of view," doing no more than establishing the law of the case).
Van Riper v. Interstate Packaging, Inc. 874 N.W.2d 242 Minn. 2016