Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Veline v. Dahlquist, 66 N.W. 141.

32 citing documents.

Hauschildt v. Beckingham 686 N.W.2d 829 Minn. 2004
Hauschildt v. Beckingham 686 N.W.2d 829 Minn. 2004
In Youngstown Mines Corp. v. Prowt, 266 Minn. 450, 466 , (quoting Veline v. Dahlquist, 64 Minn. 119, 121 , 66 N.W.
Nelson v. American Family Insurance Group 651 N.W.2d 499 Minn. 2002
Nelson v. American Family Insurance Group 651 N.W.2d 499 Minn. 2002
Veline v. Dahlquist, 64 Minn. 119, 121 , 66 N.W.
Johnson v. Hunter 435 N.W.2d 821 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Johnson v. Hunter 435 N.W.2d 821 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Youngstown Mines Corp. v. Prout, 266 Minn. 450, 466 , (quoting Veline v. Dahlquist, 64 Minn. 119, 121 , 66 N.W.
Beutz v. A.O. Smith Harvestore Products, Inc. 431 N.W.2d 528 Minn. 1988
Beutz v. A.O. Smith Harvestore Products, Inc. 431 N.W.2d 528 Minn. 1988
Youngstown Mines Corp. v. Prout, 266 Minn. 450, 466 , as follows: “A judgment on the merits constitutes an absolute bar to a second suit for the same cause of action, and is conclusive between parties and privites, not only as to every matter which was actually litigated, but also as to every matter which might have been litigated, therein.” Citing Veline v. Dahlquist, 64 Minn. 119 , 121 N.W.
Riverbluff Development Co. v. Insurance Co. of North America 412 N.W.2d 792 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Riverbluff Development Co. v. Insurance Co. of North America 412 N.W.2d 792 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
See also Youngstown Mines Corp. v. Prout, 266 Minn. 450, 466 , (quoting Veline v. Dahlquist, 64 Minn. 119, 121 , 66 N.W.
Waseca Mutual Insurance Co. v. Swanson 403 N.W.2d 678 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Waseca Mutual Insurance Co. v. Swanson 403 N.W.2d 678 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Youngstown Mines Corp. v. Prout, 266 Minn. 450, 466 , quoting Veline v. Dahlquist, 64 Minn. 119, 121 , 66 N.W.
Mattsen v. Packman 358 N.W.2d 48 Minn. 1984
Mattsen v. Packman 358 N.W.2d 48 Minn. 1984
quoting The Youngstown Mines Corp. v. Prout, 266 Minn. 450, 466 , Velina v. Dahlquist, 64 Minn. 119, 121 , 66 N.W.
Bifulk v. Evans 353 N.W.2d 258 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Bifulk v. Evans 353 N.W.2d 258 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
(citations omitted) Veline v. Dahlquist, 64 Minn. 119, 121 , 66 N.W.
Aiple v. Twin City Barge & Towing Co. 154 N.W.2d 898 Minn. 1967
Aiple v. Twin City Barge & Towing Co. 154 N.W.2d 898 Minn. 1967
1B Moore, Federal Practice (2 ed.) pp. 621 to 624, 631, 632; Veline v. Dahlquist, 64 Minn. 119 , ; The Youngstown Mines Corp. v. Prout, 266 Minn. 450 , 124 N. W. (2d) 328 .
Scott-Peabody & Associates v. Northern Leasing Corp. 140 N.W.2d 614 Minn. 1966
Scott-Peabody & Associates v. Northern Leasing Corp. 140 N.W.2d 614 Minn. 1966
The Youngstown Mines Corp. v. Prout, 266 Minn. 450 , 124 N. W. (2d) 328 ; Veline v. Dahlquist, 64 Minn. 119 , .
Youngstown Mines Corp. v. Prout 124 N.W.2d 328 Minn. 1963
Youngstown Mines Corp. v. Prout 124 N.W.2d 328 Minn. 1963
The commissioner’s claim that title might be determined by other theories does not stand the test this court announced in Veline v. Dahlquist, 64 Minn. 119, 121 , , 142: “A judgment on the merits constitutes an absolute bar to a second suit for the same cause of action, and is conclusive between parties and privies, not only as to every matter which was actually litigated, but also as to every matter which might have been litigated therein.
Melady-Briggs Cattle Corp. v. Drovers State Bank 6 N.W.2d 454 Minn. 1942
Melady-Briggs Cattle Corp. v. Drovers State Bank 6 N.W.2d 454 Minn. 1942
Co. 61 Minn. 423 , ; Veline v. Dahlquist, 64 Minn. 119 , ; White v. Hewitt, 119 Minn. 340 , ; Harbek v. Carpenter-Robinson Co. 123 Minn. 389 , ; Kinzel v. Boston & Duluth F. L. Co. 124 Minn. 416 , ; Eder v. Fink, 147 Minn. 438 , ; Driscoll v. Board of Co. Commrs.
Fox v. Fox 191 N.W. 420 Minn. 1923
Fox v. Fox 191 N.W. 420 Minn. 1923
Co. 61 Minn. 423 , ; Veline v. Dahlquist, 64 Minn. 119 , ; Kinzel v. Boston & D. F. L. Co., 124 Minn. 416 , ; Sheets v. Ramer, 125 Minn. 98 , ; Vineseck v. Great Northern Ry.
Przyblyski v. Pellowski 169 N.W. 707 Minn. 1918
Przyblyski v. Pellowski 169 N.W. 707 Minn. 1918
673; Veline v. Dahlquist, 64 Minn. 119 , ; King v. Chicago, M. & St.
Kinzel v. Boston & Duluth Farm Land Co. 145 N.W. 124 Minn. 1914
Kinzel v. Boston & Duluth Farm Land Co. 145 N.W. 124 Minn. 1914
The rule is clearly expressed by Chief Justice Start, in Veline v. Dahlquist, 64 Minn. 119 , , in the following language: “A judgment on the merits constitutes an absolute bar to a second suit for the same cause of action, and is conclusive between parties and privies, not only as to every matter which was actually litigated, but also as to every matter which might have been litigated therein.”
White v. Hewitt 138 N.W. 421 Minn. 1912
White v. Hewitt 138 N.W. 421 Minn. 1912
As said by Chief Justice Start in Veline v. Dahlquist, 64 Minn. 119 , , “a judgment on the merits constitutes an absolute bar to a second suit for the same-cause of action, and is conclusive between parties and privies, not only as to every matter which was actually litigated, but also as to-every matter which might have been litigated therein.” In Prendergast v. Searle