Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Enright v. Lehmann, 735 N.W.2d 326.

68 citing documents.

The Bank of New York Mellon fka The Bank of New York, as Trustee for the certificate holders … Minn. Ct. App. 2026
The Bank of New York Mellon fka The Bank of New York, as Trustee for the certificate holders … Minn. Ct. App. 2026
“Standing is a legal requirement that a party have a sufficient stake in a justiciable controversy to seek relief from a court.”
Larry A Koch v. Riley Purgatory Bluff Creek Watershed District, Hennepin County, ... Minn. Ct. App. 2025
Larry A Koch v. Riley Purgatory Bluff Creek Watershed District, Hennepin County, ... Minn. Ct. App. 2025
“An injury-in-fact is a concrete and particularized invasion of a legally protected interest.”
August Ventures, LLC a Minnesota limited liability company, et al., Respondents, Minn. Ct. App. 2024
See, (recognizing that the statute does not define section 571.73’s terms).
Request to Approve Issuance of State Taconite Iron Ore Mining Leases in Itasca County to Cleveland-Cliffs Minnesota ... Minn. Ct. App. 2024
Request to Approve Issuance of State Taconite Iron Ore Mining Leases in Itasca County to Cleveland-Cliffs Minnesota ... Minn. Ct. App. 2024
Injury-in-Fact Standing An injury-in-fact is “a concrete and particularized invasion of a legally protected interest.”
Jeffrey D. Kuhn, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
D-9 (citing Note, The “Poor Man’s Will” Gains Respectability: Using the Minnesota Multi-Party Accounts Act, 1 Wm.
Arctos Wealth Management and Fiduciary LLC, o/b/o Irvin John Cooper, Sr., Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
(stating that standing is established when the initiating party is “the beneficiary of some legislative enactment granting standing”); see also Minn. Stat. §§ 609.748, subd.
Minn. 2022
This claimed economic loss suffices as an injury-in-fact.4 (holding that garnishment of a debtor’s joint bank account was an injury-in- fact even though the garnished funds were not deposited by the plaintiff but from the other person on the joint account).
A21-0403 Minn. Ct. App. 2022
(“An injury-in-fact is a concrete and particularized invasion of a legally protected interest.” (citing Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560 (1992))).
Theresa M. Anderson, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
“Standing is a lega l requirement that a party ha ve a sufficient stake in a justiciable controversy to seek relief from a court.”
R.P. AIR, INC., et al., Respondents, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
“Standing is a legal requirement that a party have a sufficie nt stake in a justiciable controversy to seek relief from a court.”
Diane Saunders, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
(“Although appellate review was neither requested nor granted on this issue, standing is essential to our exercise of jurisdiction.”).
In re the Matter of the Civil Commitment of: Matthew David Feeney. Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Joel Storland, et al., Respondents, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
“Standing is a legal requirement t hat a party have a sufficient stake in a justiciable controversy to seek relief from a court.”
Abdiaziz H. Hirsi, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
.”), rev’d on other grounds
Minn. Sands, LLC v. Cnty. of Winona 917 N.W.2d 775 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Minn. Sands, LLC v. Cnty. of Winona 917 N.W.2d 775 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Enright v. Lehmann , , 329 (Minn. 2007).
Plaza Holdings, LLC, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
“Standing is a legal requirement that a party have a sufficient stake in a justiciable controversy to seek relief from a court.”
Lee Charles Bloomquist, petitioner, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
(“An issue is moot if a court is unable to grant effectual relief.”); 2 (Minn. App. 2017) (“When an event occurs which makes a decision on the merits unnecessary, an appeal is moot.”) , review denied (Minn. Dec.
In re: Sidney A. Goodman Revocable Trust, U/A/D December 16, 1985 as Amended Minn. Ct. App. 2018
“Standing is a legal requirement that a party have a sufficient stake in a justiciable controversy to seek relief from a court.”
In re the Marriage of: Thor Richard Asfeld, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
“Standing is a legal requirement that a party have a sufficient stake in a justiciable controversy to seek relief from a court.”
City of Grant, by and through its City Clerk, Kim Points, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
In such a case, the plaintiff must have “a sufficient stake in a justiciable controversy to seek relief from a court .” Enright v. Lehmann
Environmental Trust, LLC v. Hi-Tek Rubber, Inc., Gordon Cell Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Environmental Trust, LLC v. Hi-Tek Rubber, Inc., Gordon Cell Minn. Ct. App. 2016
(), review denied (Minn. June 30, 2015).
Nationstar Mortgage, LLC v. Shawn R. Dooling, Bruce Polikowsky v. Caeasar Investment, LLC, (Intervenor). Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Nationstar Mortgage, LLC v. Shawn R. Dooling, Bruce Polikowsky v. Caeasar Investment, LLC, (Intervenor). Minn. Ct. App. 2016
“Standing is a legal requirement that a party have a sufficient stake in a justiciable controversy to seek relief from a court.”
Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation v. Paul v. Pope, Gretchen A. Pope Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation v. Gary E. Mitchell, John Doe 862 N.W.2d 67 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation v. Gary E. Mitchell, John Doe 862 N.W.2d 67 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
“Standing is a legal requirement that a party have a sufficient stake in a justiciable controversy to seek relief from a court.” d 326, 329 (Minn. 2007).
Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation v. Paul v. Pope, Gretchen A. Pope Minn. Ct. App. 2015
“Standing is a legal requirement that a party have a sufficient stake in a justiciable controversy to seek relief from a court.”
Nationstar Mortgage, LLC v. Julie Quale, John Doe Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Nationstar Mortgage, LLC v. Julie Quale, John Doe Minn. Ct. App. 2015
A plaintiff has standing when he or she “is the beneficiary of some legislative enactment granting standing.”
Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation v. Renee C. Kinzer, John Doe Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation v. Patricia G. Mikelson Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation v. Renee C. Kinzer, John Doe Minn. Ct. App. 2015
“Standing is a legal requirement that a party have a sufficient stake in a justiciable controversy to seek relief from a court.” d 326, 329 (Minn. 2007).
Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation v. Patricia G. Mikelson Minn. Ct. App. 2015
A plaintiff has standing when he or she “is the beneficiary of some legislative enactment granting standing.”
The Bank of New York Mellon formerly known as the Bank of New York, as Trustee v. Anthony … Minn. Ct. App. 2014
The Bank of New York Mellon formerly known as the Bank of New York, as Trustee v. Anthony … Minn. Ct. App. 2014
In Re the GUARDIANSHIP OF Jeffers J. TSCHUMY, Ward 853 N.W.2d 728 Minn. 2014
Federal National Mortgage Association v. Jeffrey D. Robinson, John Doe Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Federal National Mortgage Association v. Jeffrey D. Robinson, John Doe Minn. Ct. App. 2014
“Standing is a legal requirement that a party have a sufficient stake in a justiciable controversy to seek relief from a court.” d 326, 329 (Minn. 2007).
Ivan Ray Vaughan v. Wade Setter, Superintendant, Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension in his official capacity Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Ivan Ray Vaughan v. Wade Setter, Superintendant, Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension in his official capacity Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Builders Ass’n of Minn. v. City of St.
Gretsch v. Vantium Capital, Inc. 846 N.W.2d 424 Minn. 2014
Gretsch v. Vantium Capital, Inc. 846 N.W.2d 424 Minn. 2014
A plaintiff may have standing in two ways: “either the plaintiff has suffered some ‘injury-in-fact’ or the plaintiff is the beneficiary of some legislative enactment granting standing.” (citing Snyder’s Drug Stores, Inc. v. Minn. State Bd.
Nielsen v. 2003 Honda Accord 845 N.W.2d 754 Minn. 2013
Nielsen v. 2003 Honda Accord 845 N.W.2d 754 Minn. 2013
State v. Barrientos 837 N.W.2d 294 Minn. 2013