Cited by

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

138 citing documents.

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: 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, Respondent, 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, Steven Scott Properties Management, ... Minn. Ct. App. 2025
Walter Smith v. Eric A. Johnson, Steven Scott Properties Management, ... Minn. Ct. App. 2025
Shamrock Dev., Inc., v. Smith
Shawn Drewicke v. State Farm Fire and Casualty Company Minn. Ct. App. 2025
Shawn Drewicke 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, Appellant, 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, petitioner, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
John Puetz, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
Steven Craig Redick, Respondent, 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, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
Charlene Karen Jundt, Respondent, 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, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
Shamrock Development, - 82 (Minn. 2008); Patterson v. Wu Fam.
Housing and Redevelopment Authority of St. Cloud, Respondent, 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, Respondent, 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, Respondent, 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., Appellants, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
The Gables at the Reserve Homeowners Association, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
Kevin Makowski, et al., Appellants, 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., Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
Shamrock Dev., Inc. v. Smith
A20-1587 Minn. Ct. App. 2021
Richard W Bandimere, et al., Respondents, 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, Respondent, 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., Respondents, 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., Respondent, 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., Appellants, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
Shamrock Dev., Inc. v. Smith, 6 rev’d on other grounds
Sara Corinne Kysylyczyn, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
North Mill Equipment Finance, LLC, Respondent, 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, Appellant, 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., Appellants, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
Id.; Shamrock Dev., d 377, 384 (Minn. 2008).
Carol Eppolite, Appellant, 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., Appellants, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
Shamrock Dev., Inc. v. Smith
Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC, Respondent, 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, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Shamrock Dev., Inc. v. Smith
Evan Andrew Lautigar, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Shamrock Dev., Inc. v. Smith
Thomas R. Blanck, et al., Appellants, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
In re the Marriage of: 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., Respondents, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Shamrock Dev ., Inc. v. Smith
Beverly S. Lundberg, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
See Shamrock Dev., Inc. v. Smith
The Jonathan Association, Plaintiff, 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.
Kelbro Company, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
“Whether service of process was effective, and personal jurisdiction therefore exists, is a 7 question of law that we review de novo.” Shamrock Dev.