Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Lemmer, 736 N.W.2d 650.

51 citing documents.

State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2026
(providing that reviewing courts “will not apply collateral estoppel if its application would work an injustice on the party to be estopped”).
Sela Investments, Ltd LLP v. J. H. Minn. Ct. App. 2025
Sela Investments, Ltd LLP v. J. H. Minn. Ct. App. 2025
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
Second, license revocation “is a civil penalty imposed administratively regardless of the outcome of any criminal proceeding [for DWI] arising from the same incident.” d 650, 663 (Minn. 2007) (holding that “collateral estoppel is inapplicable to issues litigated in DWI prosecutions that were previously litigated in implied consent proceedings because the Commissioner of Public Safety and the state are not in privity, and in this instance the state did not have a full and fair opportuni
Jade Joseph Nickels, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
Voyageurs Retreat Community Association, et al., Appellants, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
9 whether privity exists “is on whether the legal rights of the party to be estopped were adequately represented by the party to the first litigation.” State v. Lemmer , d 650, 661 (Minn. 2007); see also M argo-Kraft Distribs., d at 47 (holding that third-party defendant in the first lawsuit was not estopped from commencing a second suit involving the same parties because its “rights and liabilities were not expressly put in issue in the first action”).
Martin Matthew Lange, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
the supreme court held that, for purposes of collateral estoppel, the state, which appeared in a criminal case through a c ounty attorney’s office, was not in privity with the commissioner of the department of public safety (DPS), which appeared in a related civil case.
Don Lorge, Minn. 2022
Walsh’s and State, which do not address the State Tort Claims Act, is inapt.
In re the Marriage of: Abdiaziz Mohamud Elmi, petitioner, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
Timothy Soboleski, Individually and as Personal Representative of the Estate of Frank Soboleski, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
“We do not rigidly apply collateral estoppel, and we will not apply collateral estoppel if its application would work an injustice on the party to be estopped.”
John Moore, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
Indeed, application of a statute of limitations “determines outcomes,” and “will always bar claims if the statute 6 is tolled.”
Michael Neil Labrasca, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
(stating that appellate courts will not “decide is sues that have not been first addressed by the district court and are raised for the first time on appeal”).
Joseph Bergeron, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
See State v. Lemmer , -64 (Minn. 2007) ; Hauschildt v. Beckingham , -40 (Minn. 2004); -32 (Minn. 1994).
Connor J. K. Willis, petitioner, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Nationwide Housing Corporation, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
21, 1995); (explaining that an implied-consent proceeding is a civil proceeding which involves revocation of a driver’s license after a DWI arrest).
Certified Question United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit Minn. 2018
Browder v. State 899 N.W.2d 525 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Browder v. State 899 N.W.2d 525 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Willie Edd Reynolds v. State of Minnesota 888 N.W.2d 125 Minn. 2016
Willie Edd Reynolds v. State of Minnesota 888 N.W.2d 125 Minn. 2016
The judicial branch governs procedural matters, while the creation of substantive law is a legislative function.” (“This court has ‘primary responsibility under the separation of powers doctrine for .
Prentis Cordell Jackson v. State of Minnesota 883 N.W.2d 272 Minn. 2016
Prentis Cordell Jackson v. State of Minnesota 883 N.W.2d 272 Minn. 2016
Anita J. Howard v. Shelly R. Svoboda, M.D. 877 N.W.2d 562 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
We review the constitutionality of a statute de novo.”
Kristina Jean Powers v. Superintendent James Freihammer, in his official capacity Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Kristina Jean Powers v. Superintendent James Freihammer, in his official capacity Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v. Angela Mary Lennartson, Katie Foss 872 N.W.2d 524 Minn. 2015
State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v. Angela Mary Lennartson, Katie Foss 872 N.W.2d 524 Minn. 2015
Bemidji Township v. City of Bemidji, Northern Township, Greater Bemidji Area Joint Planning Board Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Bemidji Township v. City of Bemidji, Northern Township, Greater Bemidji Area Joint Planning Board Minn. Ct. App. 2015
at 118-19; -61 (Minn. 2007).
State of Minnesota v. Patrick Lawrence Zabinski Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Patrick Lawrence Zabinski Minn. Ct. App. 2015
-63 (Minn. 2007) (holding that the state is not collaterally estopped in criminal prosecutions from attacking holdings in implied-consent cases because the state was not a party or in privity to any party in implied-consent matters).
Daniel Garcia-Mendoza v. 2003 Chevy Tahoe, Vin 1GNEC13V23R143453, Plate 235JBM Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Daniel Garcia-Mendoza v. 2003 Chevy Tahoe, Vin 1GNEC13V23R143453, Plate 235JBM Minn. Ct. App. 2015
“Collateral estoppel precludes parties to an action from relitigating in subsequent actions issues that were determined in the prior action.” (quotation omitted).
State v. Miller 849 N.W.2d 94 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State v. Miller 849 N.W.2d 94 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State v. Castillo-Alvarez 836 N.W.2d 527 Minn. 2013
State v. Castillo-Alvarez 836 N.W.2d 527 Minn. 2013
See, -58 (Minn.2007) (discussing the difficulty in determining whether collateral estoppel is procedural or substantive).
Beaulieu v. Minnesota Department of Human Services 825 N.W.2d 716 Minn. 2013
Beaulieu v. Minnesota Department of Human Services 825 N.W.2d 716 Minn. 2013
“Collateral estoppel precludes parties to an action from relitigating in subsequent actions issues that were determined in the prior action.” (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted).
Sanchez v. State 816 N.W.2d 550 Minn. 2012
Rucker v. Schmidt 794 N.W.2d 114 Minn. 2011
Rucker v. Schmidt 794 N.W.2d 114 Minn. 2011
-61 (Minn. 2007) (stating that “[c]ommonality of interests alone is insufficient to establish privity”).
State v. Strok 786 N.W.2d 297 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
State v. Strok 786 N.W.2d 297 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
(applying de novo review to challenge to statute on grounds of separation of powers).
Fleeger v. Wyeth 771 N.W.2d 524 Minn. 2009
Fleeger v. Wyeth 771 N.W.2d 524 Minn. 2009
-58 (Minn.2007) (recognizing that statutes of limitations are "both procedural and substantive in nature,” ).
State Ex Rel. Friends of the Riverfront v. City of Minneapolis 751 N.W.2d 586 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
State Ex Rel. Friends of the Riverfront v. City of Minneapolis 751 N.W.2d 586 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
In Re the Civil Commitment of Giem 742 N.W.2d 422 Minn. 2007