Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Onvoy, Inc. v. Allete, Inc., 736 N.W.2d 611.

68 citing documents.

In re the Marriage of: Martha Jean Abbott v. James William Abbott Ladner Minn. Ct. App. 2014
But 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).
White v. City of Elk River 840 N.W.2d 43 Minn. 2013
White v. City of Elk River 840 N.W.2d 43 Minn. 2013
See Onvoy, Inc. v. ALLETE, Inc., -18 (Minn.2007) (explaining that one requirement for a justiciable declaratory judgment action is that it "involves a genuine conflict in tangible interests between parties with adverse interests”); Aronovitch v. Levy, 238 Minn. 237, 242 , (stating that "laches is an equitable doctrine in
Gieseke ex rel. Diversified Water Diversion, Inc. v. IDCA, Inc. 826 N.W.2d 816 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
Gieseke ex rel. Diversified Water Diversion, Inc. v. IDCA, Inc. 826 N.W.2d 816 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
advise the court” and an advisory jury’s findings do not “supplant” a district court’s findings but “merely reinforce the court’s own decision on the disputed fact.” Onvoy, Inc. v. ALLETE, Inc., (quotation omitted); see In re Estate of Balafas, 293 Minn. 94 , 94, , 260 (1972) (“[F]indings made by a court sitting without a jury, or with an advisory jury, shall not be set aside unless clearly erroneous.”); Noble v. C.E.D.O., Inc., (“When the cou
Schowalter v. State 822 N.W.2d 292 Minn. 2012
Schowalter v. State 822 N.W.2d 292 Minn. 2012
a justiciable controversy exists “if the claim (1) involves definite and con *299 crete 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).
United Prairie Bank-Mountain Lake v. Haugen Nutrition & Equipment, LLC 813 N.W.2d 49 Minn. 2012
Nexus v. Swift 785 N.W.2d 771 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
Nexus v. Swift 785 N.W.2d 771 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
The Seventh Amendment of the United States Constitution and Article I, section 4 of the Minnesota Constitution “protect[] essentially the same jury trial rights.” Onvoy, Inc. v. ALLETE, Inc.
Anderson v. COUNTY OF LYON 784 N.W.2d 77 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
Anderson v. COUNTY OF LYON 784 N.W.2d 77 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
See Onvoy, Inc. v. ALLETE, Inc., -18 (Minn.2007) (stating requirements for justiciable controversy); Alliance for Metro.
Hoeft v. Hennepin County 754 N.W.2d 717 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
Hoeft v. Hennepin County 754 N.W.2d 717 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
Onvoy, Inc. v. ALCETE, Inc.
Milner v. Farmers Insurance Exchange 748 N.W.2d 608 Minn. 2008
Milner v. Farmers Insurance Exchange 748 N.W.2d 608 Minn. 2008
Hempel v. Creek House Trust 743 N.W.2d 305 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
Hempel v. Creek House Trust 743 N.W.2d 305 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
Onvoy, Inc. v. ALLETE, Inc., -18 (Minn.2007).