Cited by

A justiciable controversy exists when “the claim (1) involves definite and concrete assertions of right that emanate from a legal source, (2) involves a genuine conflict in tangible interests between parties with adverse interests, and (3) is capable of specific resolution by judgment rather than presenting hypothetical facts that would form an advisory opinion.” Onvoy, Inc. v. ALLETE, Inc., –18 (Minn. 2007).

Accordingly, “[n]o right to a jury trial attaches to claims for equitable relief.” Onvoy, Inc. v. ALLETE, Inc., - 16 (Minn. 2007).

“Minnesota’s Uniform Declaratory Judgments Act grants courts the power to declare rights, status, and other legal relations whether or not further relief is or could be claimed.” Onvoy, Inc. v. ALLETE, Inc. , (quotation omitted).

Onvoy, Inc. v. ALLETE, Inc., –18 (Minn. 2007) (“A justiciable controversy exists if the claim (1) involves definite and concrete assertions of right that emanate from a legal source, (2) involves a genuine conflict in tangible interests between parties with adverse interests, and (3) is capable of specific resolution by judgment rather than p

Onvoy, Inc. v. ALLETE, Inc., -18 (Minn. 2007).

esent a justiciable controversy if the claim: “(1) involves definite and concrete assertions of right that emanate from a legal source, (2) involves a genuine conflict in tangible interests between parties with adverse interests, and (3) is capable of specific resolution by judgment rather than presenting hypothetical facts that would form an advisory opinion.” Onvoy, Inc. v. ALLETE, Inc., -18 (Minn. 2007).

See Onvoy, Inc. v. ALLETE, Inc.

While “factual findings that are common to both claims at law and claims for equitable relief are binding upon the district court,” Onvoy, Inc. v. ALLETE, Inc., “[i]ssues of fact that are not submitted to the jury on the 12 special verdict form are left to the district court to decide,” Milner v. Farmers Ins.

“Minnesota’s Uniform Declaratory Judgments Act grants courts the power to declare rights, status, and other legal relations whether or not further relief is or could be claimed.” Onvoy, Inc. v. ALLETE, Inc., (quotation omitted).

-37 (Minn. 2011); cf. Onvoy, Inc. v. ALLETE, Inc., -18 (Minn. 2007).

Onvoy, Inc. v. ALLETE, Inc., -17 (Minn. 2007).

and review the district court’s determinations of law de novo.” Onvoy, Inc. v. ALLETE, Inc., (citation omitted).

See Onvoy, Inc. v. ALLETE, Inc., (“[T]he court has no jurisdiction over a declaratory judgment proceeding unless there is a justiciable controversy.”); (“[W]e will not deem a case moot, and thus will retain jurisdiction, if the case is functionally justiciable.” (quotation omitte

Onvoy, Inc. v. ALLETE, Inc., United Prairie Bank-Mountain Lake v. Haugen Nutrition & Equip., LLC

Onvoy, Inc. v. ALLETE, Inc.

that Brown testified she “attempted to clarify” whether Ginther was eligible to play and she challenged “the discriminatory nature of the [eligibility] language” adopted by the league, but the league “did nothing to fix the language.” 15 A jury’s factual findings “common to both claims at law and claims for equitable relief are binding upon the district court.” Onvoy, Inc. v. ALLETE, Inc., (emphasis added).

Onvoy, Inc. v. ALLETE, Inc.

iciable controversy, which exists if the claim “(1) involves definite and concrete assertions of right that emanate from a legal source, (2) involves a genuine conflict in tangible interests between parties with adverse interests, and (3) is capable of specific resolution by judgment rather than presenting hypothetical facts that would form an advisory opinion.” Onvoy, Inc. v. ALLETE, Inc., –18 (Minn. 2007).

Onvoy, Inc. v. ALLETE, Inc. , , 617 (Minn. 2007).

nd concrete assertions of right that emanate from a legal source, (2) involves a genuine conflict in tangible interests between parties with adverse interests, and (3) is capable of specific resolution by judgment rather than presenting hypothetical facts that would form an advisory opinion.” -37 (Minn. 2011) (quoting Onvoy, Inc. v. ALLETE, Inc., -18 (Minn. 2007)).

oversy exists when a claim presents “definite and concrete assertions of r ight that emanate from a legal source,” “ a genuine conflict in tangible interests between parties with adverse interests, ” and a controversy capable of “resolution by judgment rather than presenting hypothetical facts that would form an advisory opinion.” d at 308 ( quoting Onvoy, Inc. v. Allete, Inc., -18 (Minn. 2007)).

Onvoy, Inc. v. ALLETE, Inc.

But a district court “has no jurisdiction over a declaratory judgment proceeding unless there is a justiciable controversy.” Onvoy, Inc. v. ALEETE, Inc.

“[FJactual findings that are common to both claims at law and claims for equitable relief are binding upon the district court.” Onvoy, Inc. v. ALLETE, Inc.

We “require the presence of a justiciable controversy as essential to our exercise of jurisdiction.” see also Onvoy, Inc. v. ALLETE, Inc., (explaining that a justiciable controversy exists when a claim presents “definite and concrete assertions of right that emanate from a legal source,” “a genuine conflict in tangible interests between parties with adverse interests,” and a controversy capable of “resolution by judgment rather than pre

“When reviewing a declaratory judgment action, we apply the clearly erroneous standard to factual findings, and review the district court’s determinations of law de novo.” Onvoy, Inc. v. ALLETE, Inc., (citations omitted).

.” Onvoy, Inc. v. ALLETE, Inc., (citations omitted); see also Skyline Vill.

“When reviewing a declaratory judgment action, we apply the clearly erroneous standard to factual findings and review the district court’s determinations of law de novo.” Onvoy, Inc. v. ALLETE, Inc., (citations omitted); see also Skyline Village Park Ass’n v. Skyline Village L.P., -07 (Minn. App. 2010).

at 138- 39; see Onvoy, Inc. v. ALLETE, Inc., (stating that “[n]o right to a jury trial attaches to claims for equitable relief”); see also Kociemba v. Kociemba, 146 Minn. 62, 64, 177 N.W.

A justiciable controversy does not exist if a claim “present[s] hypothetical facts that would form an advisory opinion.” Onvoy, Inc. v. ALLETE, Inc., −18 (Minn. 2007); see also Jasper v. Comm’r of Pub.

iable controversy exists if a declaratory action “(1) involves definite and concrete assertions of right that emanate from a legal source, (2) involves a genuine conflict in tangible interests between parties with adverse interests, and (3) is capable of specific resolution by judgment rather than presenting hypothetical facts that would form an advisory opinion.” Onvoy, Inc. v. ALLETE, Inc., -18 (Minn. 2007).