Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Heine v. Simon, 702 N.W.2d 752.

24 citing documents.

In the Matter of the Civil Commitment of: Peter Lonergan Minn. Ct. App. 2026
Douglas Kemp v. State Farm Insurance Company Minn. Ct. App. 2023
The doctrine of collateral estoppel, also known as “issue pr eclusion,” “prevent[s] litigants from relitigating in subsequent actions identical issues that were determined in a prior action.”
Voyageurs Retreat Community Association, et al v. City of Biwabik, a Municipal Corporation , and Town of White, … Minn. Ct. App. 2022
7 The doctrine of collateral estoppel “prevent[s] litigants from relitigating in subsequent actions identical issues that were determined in a prior action.”
Noga v. Minn. Vikings Football Club 931 N.W.2d 801 Minn. 2019
Noga v. Minn. Vikings Football Club 931 N.W.2d 801 Minn. 2019
is social legislation, providing a measure of security to workers injured on the job ...."); Monson v. White Bear Mitsubishi , , 538-39 (Minn. 2003) (same); see also Heine v. Simon , , 761 (Minn. 2005) ("The purpose of workers' compensation is to provide a measure of security to workers injured on the job."); Weidemann , d at 119 -20 .
Tara Ann Nesmoe-Thompson v. Neil V. Lindemann, et al Minn. Ct. App. 2019
And adopting such a doctrine would make little sense, given that collateral estoppel is intended t o promote judicial efficiency and to prevent a party from being “twice vexed for the same cause.” (quotation omitted); see also Heine v. Simon , (Anderson, Paul H., J., plurality opinion).
Production Stamping, Inc. v. Wurm Partnership, LLP Minn. Ct. App. 2018
See Heine v. Simon , (“All four prongs of the [collateral estoppel] test must be met .
James M. Johnson, et al v. Princeton Public Utilities Commission and third party plaintiff, vs. Hydrocon, Inc., Third … Minn. Ct. App. 2016
James M. Johnson, et al v. Princeton Public Utilities Commission and third party plaintiff, vs. Hydrocon, Inc., Third … Minn. Ct. App. 2016
d 752, 764 (Minn. 2005).
Barbara Peterson v. HealthEast Woodwinds Hospital Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Barbara Peterson v. HealthEast Woodwinds Hospital Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Vangelder v. Johnson 827 N.W.2d 430 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
Vangelder v. Johnson 827 N.W.2d 430 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
The purpose of the collateral es-toppel doctrine is to prevent parties from “relitigating in subsequent actions identical *436 issues that were determined in a prior action.”
In re the Estate of Perrin 796 N.W.2d 175 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
In re the Estate of Perrin 796 N.W.2d 175 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
Do v. American Family Mutual Insurance Co. 779 N.W.2d 853 Minn. 2010
Graff v. ROBERT M. SWENDRA AGENCY, INC. 776 N.W.2d 744 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
Graff v. ROBERT M. SWENDRA AGENCY, INC. 776 N.W.2d 744 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
ADVANCED DELIVERY SYSTEMS, INC. v. Jaime 774 N.W.2d 176 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
ADVANCED DELIVERY SYSTEMS, INC. v. Jaime 774 N.W.2d 176 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
(stating that the “purpose of workers’ compensation is to provide a measure of security to workers injured on the job”).
In Re the Welfare of the Children of N.F. 749 N.W.2d 802 Minn. 2008
In Re the Welfare of the Children of N.F. 749 N.W.2d 802 Minn. 2008
State v. Kendell 723 N.W.2d 597 Minn. 2006
State v. Kendell 723 N.W.2d 597 Minn. 2006