Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Ellis v. Minneapolis Commission on Civil Rights, 319 N.W.2d 702.

137 citing documents.

Khan Turouk, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
Lariat Companies Inc., Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
John Schulz, et al., Respondents, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
See, e.g., Ellis v. Minneapolis Comm’n on Civil Rights, (holding that complainant in race-discrimination matter was precluded from litigating issue of discrimination before municipal commission due to pr ior jury verdict in district court in unlawful-detainer action).
A21-0106 Minn. Ct. App. 2021
All Finish Concrete, Inc. v. Erickson 899 N.W.2d 557 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
All Finish Concrete, Inc. v. Erickson 899 N.W.2d 557 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
“Collateral estoppel precludes the relitigation of issues which are both identical to those issues already litigated by the parties in the prior action and necessary and essential to the resulting judgment.” Ellis v. Minneapolis Comm’n on Civil Rights
Isanti Pines Tree Farm, LLC, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
“Collateral estoppel precludes the relitigation of issues which are both id entical to those issues already litigated by the parties in a prior action and necessary and essential to the resulting judgment.” Ellis v. Minneapolis Comm’n on Civil Rights
Joseph Roach, et al., Appellants, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
“Collateral estoppel precludes the relitigation of issues which are both identical to those issues already litigated by the parties in a prior action and necessary and essential to the resulting judgment.” Ellis v. Minneapolis Comm’n on Civil Rights
State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v. Angela Mary Lennartson, Katie Foss 872 N.W.2d 524 Minn. 2015
State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v. Angela Mary Lennartson, Katie Foss 872 N.W.2d 524 Minn. 2015
Collateral estoppel bars the relitigation of issues that are “both identical to those issues already litigated by the parties in a prior action and necessary and essential to the resulting judgment.” Ellis v. Minneapolis Comm’n on Civil Rights, (emphasis added).
The Janine M. Hirt Trust v. Neils, Franz, Chirhart, Hultgren & Evenson, P.A. Minn. Ct. App. 2015
The Janine M. Hirt Trust v. Neils, Franz, Chirhart, Hultgren & Evenson, P.A. Minn. Ct. App. 2015
hat] [c]ase and had a fair and full opportunity to be heard 5 on the issue” and “[t]his [c]ourt’s [j]udgment in [that] [c]ase required the conclusion of law that Robert Hirt, acting without his co-trustee, could not establish an attorney-client relationship with [NFCHE] on behalf of the [t]rust.” See Ellis v. Minneapolis Comm’n on Civil Rights, (listing criteria of collateral estoppel as: (1) the issue is identical to an issue in a prior adjudication; (2) a final judgment on the merits; (3) the
State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, (A14-132), (A14-224) v. Angela Mary Lennartson, (A14-132), Katie Foss, (A14-224). 857 N.W.2d 713 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, (A14-132), (A14-224) v. Angela Mary Lennartson, (A14-132), Katie Foss, (A14-224). 857 N.W.2d 713 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
“Collateral estoppel precludes the relitigation of issues which are both identical to those issues already litigated by the parties in a prior action and necessary and essential to the resulting judgment.” Ellis v. Minneapolis Comm’n on Civil Rights
In re Disciplinary Action Against Murrin 821 N.W.2d 195 Minn. 2012
In re Disciplinary Action Against Murrin 821 N.W.2d 195 Minn. 2012
We have explained that collateral estoppel “precludes relitigation ‘of issues which are both identical to those issues already litigated by the parties in a prior action and necessary and essential to the resulting judgment.’ ” (quoting Ellis v. Minneapolis Comm’n on Civil Rights, ).
Fain v. Andersen 816 N.W.2d 696 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
Fain v. Andersen 816 N.W.2d 696 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
“Collateral estoppel precludes the relitigation of issues which are both identical to those issues already litigated by the parties in a prior action and necessary and essential to the resulting judgment.” Ellis v. Minneapolis Comm’n on Civil Rights
Barth v. Stenwick 761 N.W.2d 502 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
Barth v. Stenwick 761 N.W.2d 502 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
“Collateral estoppel precludes the relitigation of issues which are both identical to those issues already litigated by the parties in the prior action and necessary and essential to the resulting judgment.” Ellis v. Minneapolis Comm’n on Civil Rights
Crossman v. Lockwood 713 N.W.2d 58 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
Crossman v. Lockwood 713 N.W.2d 58 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
Ellis v. Minneapolis Comm’n on Civil Rights
Hauschildt v. Beckingham 686 N.W.2d 829 Minn. 2004
Hauschildt v. Beckingham 686 N.W.2d 829 Minn. 2004
Ellis v. Minneapolis Comm’n on Civil Rights, Hauser, d at 808 .
Illinois Farmers Insurance Co. v. Reed 662 N.W.2d 529 Minn. 2003
Illinois Farmers Insurance Co. v. Reed 662 N.W.2d 529 Minn. 2003
*532 Ellis v. Minneapolis Comm’n on Civil Rights, (quoting Victory Highway Village, Inc. v. Weaver, 480 F.Supp.
Illinois Farmers Insurance Co. v. Reed 647 N.W.2d 553 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
Illinois Farmers Insurance Co. v. Reed 647 N.W.2d 553 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
For example, in Ellis v. Minneapolis Comm’n on Civil Rights, -705 (Minn.1982), the supreme court rejected the concept of mutuality by determining that a judgment in favor of the landlord, which rejected a defense of racial discrimination, collaterally estopped the tenant’s charge of racial discrimination filed with the Minneapolis Commission of Civil Rights.
State v. Joseph 636 N.W.2d 322 Minn. 2001
State v. Joseph 636 N.W.2d 322 Minn. 2001
Freightways, Inc., Ellis v. Minneapolis Comm’n on Civil Rights, Bernstein v. Levitz, 223 Minn. 46, 48 , Wolfson v. N. States Mgmt.
Schlichte v. Kielan 599 N.W.2d 185 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
Schlichte v. Kielan 599 N.W.2d 185 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
Ellis v. Minneapolis Comm’n on Civil Rights, (quoting Victory Highway Village, Inc. v. Weaver, 480 F.Supp.
Butzer v. Allstate Insurance Co. 567 N.W.2d 534 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
Butzer v. Allstate Insurance Co. 567 N.W.2d 534 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
Ellis v. Minneapolis Comm’n on Civil Rights
614 Co. v. Minneapolis Community Development Agency 547 N.W.2d 400 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
614 Co. v. Minneapolis Community Development Agency 547 N.W.2d 400 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
Ellis v. Minneapolis Comm’n on Civil Rights, (quoting Victory Highway Village, Inc. v. Weaver, 480 F.Supp.
Port Authority of St. Paul v. Harstad 531 N.W.2d 496 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
Port Authority of St. Paul v. Harstad 531 N.W.2d 496 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
Ellis v. Minneapolis Comm’n on Civil Rights
Minnesota Mining & Manufacturing Co v. H & W Motor Express Co. 507 N.W.2d 622 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
Minnesota Mining & Manufacturing Co v. H & W Motor Express Co. 507 N.W.2d 622 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
(citing Ellis v. Minneapolis Comm’n on Civil Rights, ).
Matter of Trusts Created by Hormel 504 N.W.2d 505 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
Matter of Trusts Created by Hormel 504 N.W.2d 505 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
Ellis v. Minneapolis Comm’n on Civil Rights
Haavisto v. Perpich 498 N.W.2d 746 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
Haavisto v. Perpich 498 N.W.2d 746 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
Aufderhar v. Data Dispatch, Inc., (citing Ellis v. Minneapolis Comm’n on Civil Rights, ).
Matter of Trust Created by Hill 499 N.W.2d 475 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
Matter of Trust Created by Hill 499 N.W.2d 475 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
See Ellis v. Minneapolis Comm’n on Civil Rights
Harford v. University of Minnesota 494 N.W.2d 903 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
Harford v. University of Minnesota 494 N.W.2d 903 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
Johnson v. Consolidated Freightways, Inc., (citing Ellis v. Minneapolis Comm’n on Civil Rights, ).
Dziubak v. Mott 486 N.W.2d 837 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
Dziubak v. Mott 486 N.W.2d 837 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
Ellis v. Minneapolis Comm’n on Civil Rights, (quoting Victory Highway Village, Inc. v. Weaver, 480 F.Supp.