Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Brown-Wilbert, Inc. v. Copeland Buhl & Co., 732 N.W.2d 209.

79 citing documents.

Kenneth A. Roseland v. Joseph A. Wentzell, Attorney at Law, Richard L. Kusick, and Roseland Acres, LLC, third … 864 N.W.2d 356 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Christina Wagner v. Mark Sowl Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Christina Wagner v. Mark Sowl Minn. Ct. App. 2015
The doctrine applies when “(1) the earlier claim involved the same set of factual circumstances; (2) the earlier claim involved the same parties or their privities; (3) there was a final judgment on the merits; [and] (4) the estopped party had a full and fair opportunity to litigate the matter.” Brown-Wilbert, Inc. v. Copeland Buhl & Co., P.L.L.P., (quotation omitted).
Kenneth A. Roseland v. Joseph A. Wentzell, Attorney at Law, Richard L. Kusick, and Roseland Acres, LLC, third … 864 N.W.2d 356 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Brown-Wilbert, Inc. v. Copeland Buhl & Co.
Jerry Expose, Jr. v. Thad Wilderson & Associates, P. A., Nina Mattson 863 N.W.2d 95 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Jerry Expose, Jr. v. Thad Wilderson & Associates, P. A., Nina Mattson 863 N.W.2d 95 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
See, e.g., Dickhoff, d at 329 (applying section 145.682 to medical- malpractice claim); see also Brown-Wilbert, Inc. v. Copeland Buhl & Co., P.L.L.P., (applying Minnesota Statutes section 544.42, subdivision 2, to accountant-malpractice claim).
Ronald Hagle v. The Bank of New York Mellon, as Trustee of the Benefit of CWMBS Inc., Ryan … Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Ronald Hagle v. The Bank of New York Mellon, as Trustee of the Benefit of CWMBS Inc., Ryan … Minn. Ct. App. 2015
party from pursuing an action commenced after the completion of a prior action if “‘(1) the earlier claim involved the same set of factual circumstances; (2) the earlier claim involved the same parties or their privities; (3) there was a final judgment on the merits; (4) the estopped party had a full and fair opportunity to litigate the matter.’” Brown- Wilbert, Inc. v. Copeland Buhl & Co., (quoting Hauschildt, d at 840); 8 (Minn. 2011).
Randy L. Brandt v. Wayne E. Lee Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Randy L. Brandt v. Wayne E. Lee Minn. Ct. App. 2015
(3) there was a final judgment on the merits; [and] (4) the estopped party had a full and fair opportunity to litigate the matter.” Brown-Wilbert, Inc. v. Copeland Buhl & Co., (quotation omitted).
Mary Beth Davidson v. North Memorial Health Care, d/b/a North Memorial Medical Center, and d/b/a North Memorial Ambulance … Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Mary Beth Davidson v. North Memorial Health Care, d/b/a North Memorial Medical Center, and d/b/a North Memorial Ambulance … Minn. Ct. App. 2015
See Brown-Wilbert, Inc. v. Copeland Buhl & Co.
James Klapmeier v. Joseph Michael Ebel Minn. Ct. App. 2014
James Klapmeier v. Joseph Michael Ebel Minn. Ct. App. 2014
“When these four requirements have been satisfied, res judicata bars claims regarding matters actually litigated and every matter that might have been litigated in the prior proceeding.” Schober, d at 111; see also Brown-Wilbert, Inc. v. Copeland Buhl & Co., (“Res judicata applies equally to claims actually litigated and to claims that could have been litigated in the earlier action.”).
Timothy Guzick, as Personal Representative of the Estate of George J. Nyberg and as Trustee of the George … Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Timothy Guzick, as Personal Representative of the Estate of George J. Nyberg and as Trustee of the George … Minn. Ct. App. 2014
the affidavit of expert review, should be “served with the complaint and requires the attorney to certify that the attorney has consulted with an expert with adequate qualifications and that the expert has reached the opinion that the defendant deviated from the applicable standard of care in a way that caused the plaintiff’s injuries.” Brown-Wilbert, Inc. v. Copeland Buhl & Co., P.L.L.P., see also Minn. Stat. § 544.42, subds.
Julie L. Pfeiffer, Trustee on behalf of the heirs and next of kin of Dale R. Pfeiffer v. … 851 N.W.2d 626 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Julie L. Pfeiffer, Trustee on behalf of the heirs and next of kin of Dale R. Pfeiffer v. … 851 N.W.2d 626 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Brown–Wilbert, Inc. v. Copeland Buhl & Co.
Fain v. Andersen 816 N.W.2d 696 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
Fain v. Andersen 816 N.W.2d 696 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
Brown-Wilbert, Inc. v. Copeland Buhl & Co.
Wesely v. Flor 806 N.W.2d 36 Minn. 2011
Wesely v. Flor 806 N.W.2d 36 Minn. 2011
But where a question of law is present, such as statutory construction, we apply a de novo review.” Brown-Wilbert, Inc. v. Copeland Buhl & Co., (citations omitted).
Wesely v. Flor 791 N.W.2d 583 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
Wesely v. Flor 791 N.W.2d 583 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
23, 2006); see also Brown-Wilbert, Inc. v. Copeland Buhl & Co., (reviewing dismissal of malpractice action for abuse of discretion).
Schmitz v. RINKE, NOONAN 783 N.W.2d 733 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
Schmitz v. RINKE, NOONAN 783 N.W.2d 733 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
Fontaine, ; see also Brown-Wilbert, Inc. v. Copeland Buhl & Co.
Gabler v. Fedoruk 756 N.W.2d 725 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
Blume Law Firm PC v. Pierce 741 N.W.2d 921 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
Blume Law Firm PC v. Pierce 741 N.W.2d 921 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
See Brown-Wilbert, Inc. v. Copeland Buhl & Co., P.L.L.P., (noting that questions of law are reviewed de novo).