Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Janssen v. Best & Flanagan, LLP, 704 N.W.2d 759.

73 citing documents.

All Around Property Preservation, LLC, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2026
Janssen v. Best & Flanagan, LLP, d 759, 763 (Minn. 2005).
Alpha News, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2026
Janssen v. Best & Flanagan, LLP
In re the Marriage of: Teresa Marie Nordahl v. Steven Edward Nordahl Minn. Ct. App. 2026
In re the Marriage of: Teresa Marie Nordahl v. Steven Edward Nordahl Minn. Ct. App. 2026
“Appellate courts review a district court’s compliance with remand instructions under the deferential abuse of discretion standard.” Janssen v. Best & Flanagan, LLP
In re the Estate of: Jose Antonio Chimborazò Quizhpi, decedent. Minn. Ct. App. 2025
“Appellate courts review a district court’s compliance with remand instructions under the deferential abuse of discretion standard.” Janssen v. Best & Flanagan, LLP, d 759, 763 (Minn. 2005).
John Paul Haik, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
Janssen v. Best & Flanagan, LLP
Peter Richard Rickmyer, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
“Appellate courts review a district court’s compliance with remand 6 instructions under the deferential abuse of discretion standard.” Smart Growth, d at 429 (quoting Janssen v. Best & Flanagan, LLP, ).
In re City of St. Paul’s Decision on the Need for an Environmental Impact Statement for the Proposed … Minn. Ct. App. 2025
Janssen v. Best & Flanagan, LLP, d 759, 763 (Minn. 2005).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
Janssen v. Best & Flanagan, LLP
All-American Ice L.L.C., DBA All-American Arena Products, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2024
“It is axiomatic that a judgment or appealable order becomes final if a timely appeal is not taken.” Janssen v. Best & Flanagan, LLP, see, (“The Panuskas did not appeal the entry of the default judgment.
Steven A. Sugarman v. Muddy Waters Capital, LLC, Jason Galanis, ... Minn. Ct. App. 2024
Steven A. Sugarman v. Muddy Waters Capital, LLC, Jason Galanis, ... Minn. Ct. App. 2024
esumption in favor of their chosen forum, other factors rebutted the presumption.2 DECISION A district court has broad discretion, on remand, to take any action “not inconsistent with the remand instructions,” and its compliance with those instructions is reviewed under a “deferential abuse-of-discretion standard.” Janssen v. Best & Flanagan LLP
State of Minnesota by Smart Growth Minneapolis, a Minnesota nonprofit corporation v. City of ... 7 N.W.3d 418 Minn. Ct. App. 2024
State of Minnesota by Smart Growth Minneapolis, a Minnesota nonprofit corporation v. City of ... 7 N.W.3d 418 Minn. Ct. App. 2024
“Appellate courts review a district court’s compliance with remand instructions under the deferential abuse of discretion standard.” Janssen v. Best & Flanagan, LLP
Colby Lake Fourth Association, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
But “district courts are given broad discretion to determine how to proceed on remand, as they may act in any way not inconsistent with the remand instructions provided.” Janssen v. Best & Flanagan, LLP
Lisa Stone, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
Gillespie Law Offices LLP, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
Bank of Pine City, (concluding that remand “for admission of parol evidence” on a contract claim precluded amendment of pleadings to add new claims); see also Janssen v. Best & Flanagan, LLP, (“[D]istrict courts are given broad discretion to determine how to proceed on remand, as they may act in any way not inconsistent with the remand instructions provided.”) .
Ryan Carlson, et al., Appellants, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
Janssen v. Best & Flanagan, LLP
In the Matter of the Welfare of the Child of: R. S., Parent. Minn. Ct. App. 2022
Janssen v. Best & Flanagan, LLP
In re the Marriage of: Minn. Ct. App. 2022
See Janssen v. Best & Flanagan, LLP, (district court “may act in any way not inconsistent with the remand instructions provided.”).
Mark Lanterman, Plaintiff, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
Janssen v. Best & Flanagan, LLP , 3 (Minn. 2005).
In the Matter of the Welfare of the Children of S. F. S. and M. A. B., Parents. Minn. Ct. App. 2021
Janssen v. Best & Flanagan, LLP
State of Minnesota, Minn. 2020
I. We have previously said that trial courts generally have “broad discretion to determine how to proceed on remand.” (citing Janssen v. Best & Flanagan, LLP
Michelle Young, et al., Respondents, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
Janssen v. Best & Flanagan, LLP
State of Minnesota, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
“Appellate courts review a district court’s compliance with remand instructions under the deferential abuse of discretion standard.” Janssen v. Best & Flanagan, LLP, d 759, 763 (Minn. 2005).
Toyota-Lift of Minnesota, Inc., Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Comm’rs, (quoting Janssen v. Best & Flanagan, LLP, ).
In the Matter of the Application of J. M. M. o/b/o Minors for a Change of Name Minn. Ct. App. 2018
(quoting Janssen v. Best & Flanagan, LLP, ).
John S. Drewitz, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Janssen v. Best & Flanagan, LLP
County of Isanti, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
“[D]istrict courts are given broad discretion to determine how to proceed on remand, as they may act in any way not inconsistent with the remand instructions provided.” Janssen v. Best & Flanagan, LLP
Leiendecker v. Asian Women United of Minnesota 895 N.W.2d 623 Minn. 2017
Leiendecker v. Asian Women United of Minnesota 895 N.W.2d 623 Minn. 2017
“Appellate courts review a district court’s compliance with remand instructions under the deferential abuse of discretion standard.” Janssen v. Best & Flanagan, LLP
In re the Marriage of: Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Janssen v. Best & Flanagan, LLP
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
4 DECISION A denial of a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction is “immediately appealable.” Janssen v. Best & Flanagan, LLP
In the Marriage of: Robert Peter Crowley v. Bridget Marie Meyer Minn. Ct. App. 2016
In the Marriage of: Robert Peter Crowley v. Bridget Marie Meyer Minn. Ct. App. 2016
See Janssen v. Best & Flanagan, LLP, (“It is axiomatic that a judgment or appealable order becomes final if a timely appeal is not taken.”).
Contractors Edge, Inc. v. City of Mankato Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Contractors Edge, Inc. v. City of Mankato Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Janssen v. Best & Flanagan, LLP
State of Minnesota v. William Francis Melchert-Dinkel Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. William Francis Melchert-Dinkel Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Janssen v. Best & Flanagan, LLP
In re the Marriage of: Mary Patricia Myhre v. Steven Kenneth Myhre Minn. Ct. App. 2015
In re the Marriage of: Mary Patricia Myhre v. Steven Kenneth Myhre Minn. Ct. App. 2015
But “[the supreme court] ha[s] held that district courts are given broad discretion to determine how to proceed on remand, as they may act in any way not inconsistent with the remand instructions provided.” Janssen v. Best & Flanagan, LLP, 3
In re the Marriage of: Sharon Alice Gribble v. William Daniel Gribble Minn. Ct. App. 2015
In re the Marriage of: Sharon Alice Gribble v. William Daniel Gribble Minn. Ct. App. 2015
See Janssen v. Best & Flanagan, LLP, (noting that district courts enjoy “broad discretion” when determining how to proceed on remand).
Colleen M. Doyle v. Keith R. Klein Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Colleen M. Doyle v. Keith R. Klein Minn. Ct. App. 2015
District courts have “broad discretion” when determining how to proceed on remand, Janssen v. Best & Flanagan, LLP, but “[i]t is the duty of the [district] court on remand to execute the mandate of this court strictly according to its terms,” Halverson v. Vill.
In re: Receivership of United States Installment Realty Company. Minn. Ct. App. 2015
In re: Receivership of United States Installment Realty Company. Minn. Ct. App. 2015
And, while 1893 joined in Burlington’s brief, both 1893 and Burlington continue to assert claims for damages and attorneys’ fees against the General Receiver in Texas.” 7 Best & Flanagan, LLP, see also Kastner v. Star Trails Ass’n, (explaining that an interlocutory appeal is available for review of orders denying motions to dismiss for lack of personal or subject-matter jurisdiction).
Angie Rachel Ford, Relator v. Commissioner of Human Services Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Angie Rachel Ford, Relator v. Commissioner of Human Services Minn. Ct. App. 2014
See Janssen v. Best & Flanagan, LLP, (“Appellate courts review a district court’s compliance with remand instructions under the deferential abuse of discretion standard.”).