Cited by

We note, however, that venue is “the proper or a possible place for a lawsuit to proceed[,]” Black’s Law Dictionary 1876 (12th ed. 2024), and that, unlike subject-matter jurisdiction, venue is not jurisdictional, Peterson v. Holiday Recreational Indus., Inc., rev. denied (Minn. Feb.

Peterson v. Holiday Recreational Indus., Inc., rev. denied (Minn. Feb.

Peterson v. Holiday Recreational Indus., Inc., rev. denied (Minn. Feb.

Peterson v. Holiday Recreational Indus., Inc., rev. denied (Minn. Feb.

Inadequate consideration is only sufficient to establish unconscionable contract terms if it is “so great as to shock the conscie nce.” Peterson v. Holiday Recreational Indus., Inc., d 499, 505-06 (Minn. App. 2007), rev. denied (Minn. Feb.

818, 819 (Minn. 1941) (stating that improper venue in a civil case is not a jurisdictional defect); Peterson v. Holiday Recreational Indus., Inc., (stating that venue is not jurisdictional), rev. denied (Minn. Feb.

P. 52.01; (reviewing for clear error a district court’s finding that a plan existed to develop certain property); Peterson v. Holiday Recreational Indus., Inc. , (reviewing a di strict court’s finding regarding the existence of a constructive trust for clear error), review denied (Minn. Feb.

“It has been the long accepted practice in this state to seek review of a venue order by petitioning this court for a writ of mandamus.” Peterson v. Holiday Recreational Indus., Inc., (quotation and citation omitted), review denied (Minn. Feb.

And assumptions underlying an opinion that are not the subject of a court’s analysis are not precedential on the point that is assumed” (citing Skelly Oil Co. v. Comm’r of Taxation, ); see Peterson v. Holiday Recreational Indus., Inc., n.1 (Minn. App. 2007), review denied (Minn. Feb.

Inc., review denied (Minn. Feb.

Inadequate consideration, standing alone, is not sufficient to establish uncons cionable conduct unless it is “so great as to shock the conscience.” Peterson v. Holiday Recreational Indus., Inc., review denied (Minn. Feb.

see Peterson v. Holiday Recreational Indus., Inc., n.1 (Minn. App. 2007) (same), review denied (Minn. Feb.

Despite the lack of statutory or procedural support for his guardianship request, appellant also asks this court to appoint him as respondent’s guardian “as a matter of equity and fundamental fairness.” “Under the doctrine of unclean hands: he who seeks equity must do equity, and he who comes into equity must come with clean hands.” Peterson v. Holiday Recreational Indus., Inc. , (quotation omitted), review denied (Minn. Feb.

Industs., Inc., (quoting Johnson v. Freberg, 178 Minn. 594, 597–98, 228 N.W.

“[V]enue in civil actions is not jurisdictional.” Peterson v. Holiday Recreational Indus., Inc., (quotation omitted) (citing Claseman v. Feeney, 211 Minn. 266, 268, 300 N.W.