Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Juelich v. Yamazaki Mazak Optonics Corp., 682 N.W.2d 565.

74 citing documents.

Medtronic, Inc. v. Matthew Lahn, AlphaTec Spine, Inc. Minn. Ct. App. 2026
Medtronic, Inc. v. Matthew Lahn, AlphaTec Spine, Inc. Minn. Ct. App. 2026
Cole Robert Hooker v. David Sean Kennedy Minn. Ct. App. 2026
Cole Robert Hooker v. David Sean Kennedy Minn. Ct. App. 2026
Timothy John Walvatne, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2026
A court may exercise general personal jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant when the “defendant’s contacts with the forum state are so substantial and are of such a nature (continuous and systematic) that the state may assert jurisdiction over the defendant even for causes of action unrelated to the defendant’s contacts with the forum state.” n.3 (Minn. 2004).
Shawn Peters, Respondent, vs. Samsung SDI Co., Ltd., a Korean Corporation, Appellant, Samsung SDI America, Inc., a ... Minn. Ct. App. 2025
Shawn Peters, Respondent, vs. Samsung SDI Co., Ltd., a Korean Corporation, Appellant, Samsung SDI America, Inc., a ... Minn. Ct. App. 2025
(“At the pretrial stage, .
Myth Live II Inc., Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
A state’s exercise of personal jurisdiction may not “offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.” (quotation omitted).
Tanner Lynn, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
“Whether personal jurisdiction exists is a question of law which we review de novo.”
A24-1652 Minn. Ct. App. 2025
Masami Kiya, petitioner, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
Based on our de novo review of whether personal jurisdiction existed, 13 (Minn. 2004), we are satisfied that, based on the circumstances as they existed when Kiya registered the order on April 4, 2024, the district court had personal jurisdiction over Jackson.
Gopher Mats, LLC d/b/a Viking Mat Company, Cross-Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
The first three factors relate to whether a nonresident defendant has sufficient “minimum contacts” with Minnesota, and the last two factors establish the reasonableness of jurisdiction under the concepts of “fair play and substantial justice.”
A24-0478 Minn. Ct. App. 2024
“Once jurisdiction has been challenged by the defendant, the burden is on the plaintiff to prove that sufficient contacts exist with the forum state.” –70 (Minn. 2004).
Jennifer A. Hindermann, as executrix of the Estate of David K. Hindermann and as beneficiary of the Revocable … Minn. Ct. App. 2024
Bruce A. Rasmussen & Associates, LLC, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
5 “Due process requires that the defendant have ‘certain minimum contacts’ with the forum state and that the exercise of jurisdiction over the defendant does not offend ‘traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.’” (footnote omitted) (quoting Burnham v. Superior Ct. of Cal., 495 U.S. 604, 618 (1990)).
State of Minnesota, by its Attorney General, Keith Ellison, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
(“At the pretrial stage, .
In re the Marriage of: Michael Robert Jacobson, petitioner, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
Juelich v. Yamazaki Mazak Optonics 6 Corp., -70 (Minn. 2004).
Husky Construction, Inc., Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
The first three factors relate to whether a nonresident defendant has sufficient “minimum contacts” with Minnesota, and the last two factors establish the reasonableness of jurisdiction under the concepts of “fair play and substantial justice.”
Health Care Service Corporation, et al., Respondents, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
The Estate of Michael T. Conneran, Jr., Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
William H. Davis, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
R.P. AIR, INC., et al., Respondents, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
Juelich v. Yamazaki Mazak Optonics Corp.
Michael Hosting, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
Michael A. Zimmer, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
Juelich v. Yamazaki Mazak Optonics Corp.
Megan Guetzkow, as mother and natural guardian of E.I., a minor, et al., Respondents, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
Patterson v. W u Family Corp., ; aff’d
Snap Fitness, Inc., Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
” Juelich v. Yamazaki Mazak Optonics Corp. , -70 (Minn. 2004).
Michelle Young, et al., Respondents, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
Bandemer v. Ford Motor Co. 931 N.W.2d 744 Minn. 2019
Bandemer v. Ford Motor Co. 931 N.W.2d 744 Minn. 2019
Juelich v. Yamazaki Mazak Optonics Corp. , , 569-70 (Minn. 2004).
Discover Bank, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Joel Wells, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Juelich v. Yamazaki Mazak Optonics Corp.
State of Minnesota, by its Attorney General, Lori Swanson, et al., Respondents, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Cruz-Guzman v. State 916 N.W.2d 1 Minn. 2018
Rebecca Minkoff Apparel, LLC, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Bandemer v. Ford Motor Co. 913 N.W.2d 710 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Bandemer v. Ford Motor Co. 913 N.W.2d 710 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
*714 Juelich v. Yamazaki Mazak Optonics Corp. , , 569-70 (Minn. 2004).
Brian MacDonald, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
1 1 We note that respondents also assert on appeal that the district court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction over the controversy.
Droel, PLLC, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Fair Isaac Corporation v. Michael Gordon, Callcredit Information Group Limited Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Fair Isaac Corporation v. Michael Gordon, Callcredit Information Group Limited Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Michael P. Schaefer v. Archdiocese of St. Paul and Minneapolis, Roman Catholic Diocese of Orange Revocable Trust Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Michael P. Schaefer v. Archdiocese of St. Paul and Minneapolis, Roman Catholic Diocese of Orange Revocable Trust Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Patterson Dental Supply, Inc. v. Theodore Vlamis Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Patterson Dental Supply, Inc. v. Theodore Vlamis Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Scott Rilley v. MoneyMutual, LLC 884 N.W.2d 321 Minn. 2016
Scott Rilley v. MoneyMutual, LLC 884 N.W.2d 321 Minn. 2016
“Whether personal jurisdiction exists is a question of law, which we review de novo.”
In Re the Matter of: Anne Ray Charitable Trust, a Minnesota charitable trust, under agreement dated August 20, … Minn. Ct. App. 2016
In Re the Matter of: Anne Ray Charitable Trust, a Minnesota charitable trust, under agreement dated August 20, … Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Jurisdiction “Whether personal jurisdiction exists is a question of law[,] which we review de novo.”
Newman-Lakka Cancer Foundation v. Christine E. Briggs Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Newman-Lakka Cancer Foundation v. Christine E. Briggs Minn. Ct. App. 2016