Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite SHAMROCK DEVELOPMENT, INC. v. Smith, 754 N.W.2d 377.

139 citing documents.

In re the Custody of the Child of: Justin Steiner v. Nicole Lynn Patten Minn. Ct. App. 2026
Appellate courts review de novo whether service was effective, “apply[ing] the facts as found by the district court unless those factual findings are clearly erroneous.” Shamrock Dev., Inc. v. Smith , accord .
Estate of Robert N. Roningen, a/k/a Robert Noel Roningen (Special and Formal - Supervised) Minn. Ct. App. 2026
But in reviewing a district court’s ruling regarding whether personal jurisdiction exists, appellate courts “must apply the facts as found by the district court unless those factual findings are clearly erroneous.” Shamrock Dev.
In the Marriage of: Erin Marie Adams v. Cody Dan Adams, County of Blue Earth, Intervenor Minn. Ct. App. 2026
In the Matter of the Civil Commitment of: Lisa Danielle Labok Minn. Ct. App. 2026
This court reviews de novo “[w]hether service of process was effective, and personal jurisdiction therefore exists.” Shamrock Dev.
Timothy John Walvatne v. Urmah Arte, et al., Muhamed Begovic, et al Minn. Ct. App. 2026
v. Smith, d 377, 385 (Minn. 2008) (reversing and remanding an appellant’s motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction based on service of process where “the district court did not make the necessary factual findings”).
Walter Smith v. Eric A. Johnson, et al., Steven Scott Properties Management Minn. Ct. App. 2025
Walter Smith v. Eric A. Johnson, et al., Steven Scott Properties Management Minn. Ct. App. 2025
Shamrock Dev., Inc., v. Smith
Shawn Drewicke, et al v. State Farm Fire and Casualty Company Minn. Ct. App. 2025
Shawn Drewicke, et al v. State Farm Fire and Casualty Company Minn. Ct. App. 2025
Co., (statutory interpretation); Shamrock Dev., (service).
Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, Respondent, vs. True Gravity Ventures, LLC, et al., Respondents, Astra Genstar ... Minn. 2025
Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, Respondent, vs. True Gravity Ventures, LLC, et al., Respondents, Astra Genstar ... Minn. 2025
And we do not “examine [court] rules in isolation, but instead read them in light of one another.” Shamrock Dev., 2 In 2015, we expanded the e-filing rules by adopting Rule 14.03(f), which authorized the courts to transmit documents and notices to parties through the e-filing system.
Raymond Semler v. Susan Johnson, et al Minn. Ct. App. 2025
“Whether service of process was effective, and personal jurisdiction therefore exists, is a question of law that we review de novo.” (quoting Shamrock Dev., ).
Masami Kiya v. Randy Jackson, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2025
John Puetz v. Vernon Sechriest, II Minn. Ct. App. 2025
Steven Craig Redick v. John Leslie Cooper Minn. Ct. App. 2025
“Whether service of process was effective, and personal jurisdiction therefore exists, is a question of law that we review de novo.” Shamrock Dev.
Joseph Rued v. Commissioner of Human Services Minn. 2024
Joseph Rued v. Commissioner of Human Services Minn. 2024
17 process “by submitting itself to the court’s jurisdiction and affirmatively invoking the court’s power.” Shamrock Dev.
Balwant Prasad v. Kyle Leary Minn. Ct. App. 2024
Balwant Prasad v. Kyle Leary Minn. Ct. App. 2024
Shamrock Dev., d 377, 382 (Minn. 2008).
Marlene Fearing v. University of Minnesota Medical Center a/k/a M Health Fairview Clinics, and Mayo Clinic of Rochester, … Minn. Ct. App. 2023
Charlene Karen Jundt v. Marcus Edward Jundt Minn. Ct. App. 2023
“Whether servic e of process was effective, and personal jurisdiction therefore exists, is a question of law that we review de novo.” Shamrock Dev.
In re the Matter of Joseph Rued v. the Commissioner of Human Services Minn. Ct. App. 2023
Shamrock Development, - 82 (Minn. 2008); Patterson v. Wu Fam.
Housing and Redevelopment Authority of St. Cloud v. Morris Royston Minn. Ct. App. 2023
Shamrock Dev., rev’d on other grounds, see also In re Disciplinary Action 5 Against Coleman, (indicating that “improper service” causes a “lack of personal jurisdiction”).
Lisa Stone, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Invitation Homes, Inc., et al., THR … Minn. Ct. App. 2023
See Shamrock Dev., (remanding for the district court to make findings necessary to determine jurisdiction); Thiele, d at 582.
In the Matter of V & J Farm, LLC and the Commissioner of North Fork Crow River Watershed … Minn. Ct. App. 2022
7 I. Appellate courts review the “constructi on and application of the Minnesota Rules of Civil Procedure de novo.” Shamrock Dev.
Landmark Community Bank, N.A., now doing business as Flagship Bank Minnesota v. James L. Lang Minn. Ct. App. 2022
(citing Minn. Stat. § 541.04 (2010)); see also Shamrock Dev., Inc. v. Smith , (Shamrock I) (explaining requirements for renewal-of-judgment action), rev’d on other grounds, (Shamrock II).
Patrick Wandersee, et al v. RAM Mutual Insurance Company Minn. Ct. App. 2022
The Gables at the Reserve Homeowners Association v. Midwest Family Mutual Insurance Company Minn. Ct. App. 2021
Kevin Makowski, et al v. Children’s Minnesota, The Children’s Heart Clinic, Children’s Respiratory & Critical Care Specialists Minn. Ct. App. 2021
“Whether service of process was effective, and personal jurisdiction therefore exists, is a question of law that [appellate courts] review de novo.” Shamrock Dev.
Alerus Financial, N.A. v. Aaron Carlson Corporation, Jason Horner Minn. Ct. App. 2021
Shamrock Dev., Inc. v. Smith
Raymond Kvalvog, et al v. Josh Lee, et al., Secura Insurance Minn. Ct. App. 2021
Richard W Bandimere, et al v. Anita Summerville, A Summerville Realty Corporation d/b/a Summerville Realty Group Minn. Ct. App. 2021
The defense of lack of personal jurisdiction is not waived by a party who simultaneously “invokes the court’s jurisdiction on the merits and asks the court to rule on a jurisdictional defense” unless “other circumstances clearly demonstrate the party’s acquiescence to the court’s jurisdiction.” Shamrock Dev., Inc. v. Smith , (quotation omitted) .
Jenna Kayleen Christensen v. Karrie Kelly, Wabasha County Attorney, et al Minn. Ct. App. 2021
“But in conducting this review, we must apply the facts as found by the district court unle ss those factual findings are clearly erroneous.” Shamrock Dev., Inc. v. Smith
R.P. AIR, INC., et al v. Great Gulf Corporation, Jane Doe, et al Minn. Ct. App. 2021
“Whether service of process was effective, and personal jurisdiction therefore exists, is a question of law that we review de novo.” Shamrock Dev., 382 (Minn. 2008) (citing Roehrdanz v. Brill , ).
Butler & Allen P.A. v. Ronald William Kammueller Minn. Ct. App. 2021
“Whether service of process was effectiv e, and personal jurisdiction therefore exists, is a question of law that [a ppellate courts] review de novo.” See Shamrock Dev.
Dwaine C. Ratfield, et al v. South Harbor Township, Robert Zuckerman, et al Minn. Ct. App. 2020
Shamrock Dev., Inc. v. Smith, 6 rev’d on other grounds
Sara Corinne Kysylyczyn v. Teresa MacNabb, John Michael Kysylyczyn Minn. Ct. App. 2020
North Mill Equipment Finance, LLC v. Gruz Boga, LLC and Third Party Plaintiff, Petro Siruk and third party … Minn. Ct. App. 2020
See Shamrock Dev., Inc. v. Smith , (indicating that effective se rvice of process establishes personal jurisdiction).2 There is no doubt that the district court had subject-matter jurisdiction over this breach-of-contract dispute.
A. Darlene Gibson v. Special School District #1 Minn. Ct. App. 2020
9 waiver will not result unless other circumstances clearly demonstrate the party’s acquiescence to the court’s jurisdiction.” Shamrock Dev., (quotation omitted).
Timothy Gieseke, et al v. Nicollet County Drainage Authority for County Ditch No. 86A Minn. Ct. App. 2020
Id.; Shamrock Dev., d 377, 384 (Minn. 2008).
Carol Eppolite v. Dustin James Swenson, et al Minn. Ct. App. 2020
“Once the plaintiff submits evidence of service, a defendant who challenges the sufficiency of service of process has the burden of showing that the service was improper.” Shamrock Development
Tammy Kirkpatrick, et al v. Meeker County Board of Commissioners Minn. Ct. App. 2020
Shamrock Dev., Inc. v. Smith
Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC v. Bradley C. Johnson, Karol M. Johnson Minn. Ct. App. 2020
But in conducting this review, we must apply the facts as found by the district court unless those factual findings are clearly erroneous.” Shamrock Dev.
South Metro Federal Credit Union v. KeiJuan J. Brown Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Shamrock Dev., Inc. v. Smith
Evan Andrew Lautigar v. $42,830.00 in U.S. Currency Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Shamrock Dev., Inc. v. Smith
Thomas R. Blanck, et al v. Rayvell Deprie Carter, Ameriprise Auto & Home Insurance Company, EAN Holdings, LLC, … Minn. Ct. App. 2019
In re the Marriage of: Tristan Joseph Trainer v. Ashley Dominique Nichole Goodlander Minn. Ct. App. 2019
But we review de novo “[w]hether service of pr ocess was effective, and person al jurisdiction therefore exists.” Shamrock Dev.
Robert F. Goerdt, et al v. Lucille Goerdt, et al Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Shamrock Dev ., Inc. v. Smith
Beverly S. Lundberg v. Shelly J. Brown, et al Minn. Ct. App. 2019
See Shamrock Dev., Inc. v. Smith
The Jonathan Association, and S3 Holdings, LLC, its assignee v. Chase Wirth, John Doe, et al Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Shamrock Dev., Inc. v. Smith , 7 (Minn. 2008) (“Rule 4.04(a) is not satisfied if the affiant merely affirms that he ‘believes’ that one of the enumerated circumstances exist.

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by