Cited by

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

377 citing documents.

Kuehn v. St. Louis County 694 N.W.2d 72 Minn. 2005
(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).
King v. Woodsman Midwest, Inc. 693 N.W.2d 876 Minn. 2005
King v. Woodsman Midwest, Inc. 693 N.W.2d 876 Minn. 2005
(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).
Walbridge v. NORTHERN HYDRAULICS 693 N.W.2d 425 Minn. 2005
Walbridge v. NORTHERN HYDRAULICS 693 N.W.2d 425 Minn. 2005
(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).
Sweet Ex Rel. Sweet v. Tremendous! Entertainment Inc. 693 N.W.2d 194 Minn. 2005
Bradwell v. U.S. Roof Tech Corp. 693 N.W.2d 194 Minn. 2005
Bradwell v. U.S. Roof Tech Corp. 693 N.W.2d 194 Minn. 2005
(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).
Sweet Ex Rel. Sweet v. Tremendous! Entertainment Inc. 693 N.W.2d 194 Minn. 2005
(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).
Stone v. Harold Chevrolet 692 N.W.2d 888 Minn. 2005
Stone v. Harold Chevrolet 692 N.W.2d 888 Minn. 2005
(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).
Scanlon v. CAILLE FARM, INC. 691 N.W.2d 473 Minn. 2005
Scanlon v. CAILLE FARM, INC. 691 N.W.2d 473 Minn. 2005
(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).
Hodgson Ex Rel. Hodgson v. AL's Tree Service 692 N.W.2d 76 Minn. 2005
Hodgson Ex Rel. Hodgson v. AL's Tree Service 692 N.W.2d 76 Minn. 2005
(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).
Cyr v. WENSMANNS HOMES, INC. 690 N.W.2d 131 Minn. 2004
Cyr v. WENSMANNS HOMES, INC. 690 N.W.2d 131 Minn. 2004
(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).
Ahles v. JOHN A. DALSIN & SONS 689 N.W.2d 246 Minn. 2004
Webb v. HERCULES, INC./BURNS PHILIP, INC. 689 N.W.2d 246 Minn. 2004
Webb v. HERCULES, INC./BURNS PHILIP, INC. 689 N.W.2d 246 Minn. 2004
(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).
Ahles v. JOHN A. DALSIN & SONS 689 N.W.2d 246 Minn. 2004
(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).
Kowalik v. Martinson Construction 688 N.W.2d 332 Minn. 2004
Wensman v. Order of St. Benedict/St. John's University 688 N.W.2d 332 Minn. 2004
Kowalik v. Martinson Construction 688 N.W.2d 332 Minn. 2004
(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).
Wensman v. Order of St. Benedict/St. John's University 688 N.W.2d 332 Minn. 2004
(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).
Tillemans v. Pierce Co. of Minneapolis 687 N.W.2d 181 Minn. 2004
Tillemans v. Pierce Co. of Minneapolis 687 N.W.2d 181 Minn. 2004
(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).
GANFIELD v. City of Richfield 687 N.W.2d 180 Minn. 2004
GANFIELD v. City of Richfield 687 N.W.2d 180 Minn. 2004
(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).
B.M.B. v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. 664 N.W.2d 817 Minn. 2003
B.M.B. v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. 664 N.W.2d 817 Minn. 2003
“The general rule is that, absent special circumstances or specific pronouncements by the overruling court that its decision is to be applied prospectively only, the decision is to be given retroactive effect.”
State v. Baird 654 N.W.2d 105 Minn. 2002
State v. Baird 654 N.W.2d 105 Minn. 2002
that absent special circumstances or specific pronouncements of prospectivity, a decision is given retroactive effect.
Marriage of Clark v. Clark 642 N.W.2d 459 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
Marriage of Clark v. Clark 642 N.W.2d 459 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
State v. Baird 640 N.W.2d 363 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
State v. Baird 640 N.W.2d 363 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
Khawaja v. State Farm Insurance Companies 631 N.W.2d 106 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
Khawaja v. State Farm Insurance Companies 631 N.W.2d 106 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
Winona County Department of Human Services v. Casper 593 N.W.2d 709 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
Winona County Department of Human Services v. Casper 593 N.W.2d 709 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
Summers v. R & D AGENCY, INC. 593 N.W.2d 241 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
Summers v. R & D AGENCY, INC. 593 N.W.2d 241 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
Baker v. State 590 N.W.2d 636 Minn. 1999
Baker v. State 590 N.W.2d 636 Minn. 1999
Marriage of Holmberg v. Holmberg 588 N.W.2d 720 Minn. 1999
Marriage of Holmberg v. Holmberg 588 N.W.2d 720 Minn. 1999
(relying on Chevron Oil Co. v. Huson, 404 U.S. 97, 106-07 , 92 S.Ct.
State v. Loewen 565 N.W.2d 714 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
State v. Loewen 565 N.W.2d 714 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
Thus, this court’s Orsello decision is “regarded in law as never having been the law.” Though application of the balancing test is not necessary because of the general rule that an overruling decision is to be applied retrospectively, if we were to apply the test, the retrospective application of Orsello would nevertheless be required.
Application of Minnegasco 566 N.W.2d 727 Minn. Ct. App. 1997