Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite In Re GlaxoSmithKline Plc, 699 N.W.2d 749.

98 citing documents.

State of Minnesota v. Julian Sanchez-Sanchez 879 N.W.2d 324 Minn. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Julian Sanchez-Sanchez 879 N.W.2d 324 Minn. 2016
522 n. 4 (Minn.2014) (declining to address an issue because it was not raised in the State’s petition for review); (explaining that we generally do not address issues that were not raised in a petition for review).
State of Minnesota v. Joshua Lee Myhre 875 N.W.2d 799 Minn. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Joshua Lee Myhre 875 N.W.2d 799 Minn. 2016
“Generally, we do not address issues that were not raised in a petition for review.”
Kimberlee Ann Nelson v. Lynette Nelson 866 N.W.2d 901 Minn. 2015
Kimberlee Ann Nelson v. Lynette Nelson 866 N.W.2d 901 Minn. 2015
(“Generally, we do not address issues that were not raised in a petition for review.”).
State of Minnesota v. Tommy Salyers, III 858 N.W.2d 156 Minn. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Tommy Salyers, III 858 N.W.2d 156 Minn. 2015
n.3 (Minn. 2010) (explaining that failure to raise an issue in the petition for review “waives the issue on appeal”)
State v. Juarez 837 N.W.2d 473 Minn. 2013
State v. Juarez 837 N.W.2d 473 Minn. 2013
In re the Welfare of the Children of L.L.P. 836 N.W.2d 563 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
In re the Welfare of the Children of L.L.P. 836 N.W.2d 563 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
The denial of appellants’ motion is a “final order” because it “ends the proceeding as far as the court is concerned” relative to the substantial rights of appellants or “finally determines some positive legal right of the appellant[s] relating to the action.” (quotations omitted).
Fiduciary Foundation, LLC v. Brown 834 N.W.2d 756 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
Fiduciary Foundation, LLC v. Brown 834 N.W.2d 756 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
(construing rule 103.03(g), stating that “[w]e have defined a final order as one that ends the proceeding as far as the court is concerned or that ‘finally determines some positive legal right of the appellant relating to the action,’ ” observing that prior constructions of “substantial right” had bee
Ruiz v. 1st Fidelity Loan Servicing, LLC 829 N.W.2d 53 Minn. 2013
Ruiz v. 1st Fidelity Loan Servicing, LLC 829 N.W.2d 53 Minn. 2013
1st Fidelity did not seek review of this aspect of the court of appeals decision; therefore it is not before us. ("Generally, we do not address issues that were not raised in a petition for review.”).
Beuning Family LP v. County of Stearns 817 N.W.2d 122 Minn. 2012
Tatro v. University of Minnesota 816 N.W.2d 509 Minn. 2012
Tatro v. University of Minnesota 816 N.W.2d 509 Minn. 2012
In re the Welfare of R.S. 805 N.W.2d 44 Minn. 2011
In re the Welfare of R.S. 805 N.W.2d 44 Minn. 2011
See Shamrock Dev., (civil procedure); *49 (criminal procedure); (civil appellate procedure).
Miller v. Lankow 801 N.W.2d 120 Minn. 2011
Miller v. Lankow 801 N.W.2d 120 Minn. 2011
We conclude that this issue is not properly before us. We said in : “Generally, we do not address issues that were not raised in a petition for review.” See also Nw.
State v. Finnegan 784 N.W.2d 243 Minn. 2010
In Re Haslund 781 N.W.2d 349 Minn. 2010
In re the Denial of Certification of the Variance Granted to Haslund 781 N.W.2d 349 Minn. 2010
In re the Denial of Certification of the Variance Granted to Haslund 781 N.W.2d 349 Minn. 2010
In Re Haslund 781 N.W.2d 349 Minn. 2010
Day Masonry v. Independent School District 347 781 N.W.2d 321 Minn. 2010
Day Masonry v. Independent School District 347 781 N.W.2d 321 Minn. 2010
Marchio v. Western National Mutual Insurance Co. 747 N.W.2d 376 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
Marchio v. Western National Mutual Insurance Co. 747 N.W.2d 376 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
(acknowledging power to consider issue not raised in notice of review, but declining to do so when issue not fully developed and opposing party would be prejudiced); Kolby v. Nw.
St. Croix Development, LLC v. Gossman 735 N.W.2d 320 Minn. 2007
St. Croix Development, LLC v. Gossman 735 N.W.2d 320 Minn. 2007
Further, we have indicated that the existence of a special proceeding “is not dependent upon the existence of any other action and it therefore is not an integral *325 part of the original action but is separate and apart.” (quoting Willeck v. Willeck, 286 Minn. 553 , 554 n. 1, , 559 n. 1 (1970)).
In Re Glaxosmithkline Plc. 732 N.W.2d 257 Minn. 2007
In Re Glaxosmithkline Plc. 732 N.W.2d 257 Minn. 2007
In re GlaxoSmithKline plc (GSK I), -57 (Minn.2005).
Granville v. Minneapolis Public Schools, Special School District No. 1 732 N.W.2d 201 Minn. 2007
Granville v. Minneapolis Public Schools, Special School District No. 1 732 N.W.2d 201 Minn. 2007
While we generally do not address issues not raised in a petition for review, (citation omitted), this court may take any action that justice may require.
George v. Estate of Baker 724 N.W.2d 1 Minn. 2006
George v. Estate of Baker 724 N.W.2d 1 Minn. 2006
see also Northwest Racquet Swim & Health Clubs, Inc. v. Deloitte & Touche, , 613 n. 1 (Minn.1995).
State v. Bell 719 N.W.2d 635 Minn. 2006
State v. Bell 719 N.W.2d 635 Minn. 2006
In Re GlaxoSmithKline Plc 713 N.W.2d 48 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
In Re GlaxoSmithKline Plc 713 N.W.2d 48 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
State v. C.P.H. 707 N.W.2d 699 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
State v. CPH 707 N.W.2d 699 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
State v. C.P.H. 707 N.W.2d 699 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
State v. CPH 707 N.W.2d 699 Minn. Ct. App. 2006