Cited by

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

138 citing documents.

In the Matter of the Welfare of the Child of: C. F. and J. B., Parents. Minn. Ct. App. 2019
See Shamrock Dev., Inc., v. Smith , (“We do not examine the rules [of civil procedure] in isolation, but instead read them in light of one another and interpret[ ] them acc ording to their purpose.” (quotation omitted)).
Village Homes of Grandview Square II Association, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Rather, it is the failure to provide the court an opportunity to rule on the defense before affirmatively invoking the court’s jurisdiction on the merits of the claim that is determinative.” Shamrock Dev., Inc. v. Smith , (quotation omitted).
Berg, Debele, DeSmidt & Rabuse, P.A., f/d/b/a Walling, Berg & Debele, P. A., Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
In re the Estate of: Randy Brian Sukut, Deceased. Minn. Ct. App. 2018
P. 4.05, “must be followed”); Shamrock Dev., Inc. v. Smith , (interpreting the service-by-publication rule, Minn. R. Civ.
Cox v. Mid-Minnesota Mut. Ins. Co. 909 N.W.2d 540 Minn. 2018
Cox v. Mid-Minnesota Mut. Ins. Co. 909 N.W.2d 540 Minn. 2018
Shamrock Dev., Inc. v. Smith , , 382 (Minn. 2008).
The Bank of New York Mellon f/k/a The Bank of New York, as Trustee for the Certificate holders … Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Midland Funding, LLC, as successor in interest to FIA Card Services, N.A., Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
“Whether service of process was effective, and personal jurisdiction therefore exists, is a question of law that we review de novo.” Shamrock Dev., Inc. v. Smith
Livingston Financial, LLC, as successor in interest to US Bank, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Shamrock Dev., Inc. v. Smith
Kokosh v. $4657.00 U.S. Currency 898 N.W.2d 284 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Kokosh v. $4657.00 U.S. Currency 898 N.W.2d 284 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Brian MacDonald, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State v. Thomas 891 N.W.2d 612 Minn. 2017
State v. Thomas 891 N.W.2d 612 Minn. 2017
The rules must be read as a whole, and “in light of one another,” Shamrock Dev.
Sherdell Jean Leshoure v. 2003 GMC Yukon, MN LIC 399 CCP, VIN 2GKEK13Z93J209465 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Nichole Cox v. Mid-Minnesota Mutual Insurance Company Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Nichole Cox v. Mid-Minnesota Mutual Insurance Company Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Sherdell Jean Leshoure v. 2003 GMC Yukon, MN LIC 399 CCP, VIN 2GKEK13Z93J209465 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Steven J. Jaeger v. Palladium Holdings, LLC, Franklin Financial, LLC 884 N.W.2d 601 Minn. 2016
Steven J. Jaeger v. Palladium Holdings, LLC, Franklin Financial, LLC 884 N.W.2d 601 Minn. 2016
McCullough and Sons, Inc. v. City of Vadnais Heights, A14-1992 883 N.W.2d 580 Minn. 2016
McCullough and Sons, Inc. v. City of Vadnais Heights, A14-1992 883 N.W.2d 580 Minn. 2016
See Shamrock Dev., -82 (Minn. 2008); -67 (Minn. 2000).
Unifund CCR, LLC, as assignee of Pilot Receivables Management, LLC v. Jeffrey A. Carney Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Unifund CCR, LLC, as assignee of Pilot Receivables Management, LLC v. Jeffrey A. Carney Minn. Ct. App. 2016
“Whether service of process was effective, and personal jurisdiction therefore exists, is a question of law that we review de novo.” Shamrock Dev.
Keith Melillo v. Terry Arden Heitland 880 N.W.2d 862 Minn. 2016
Keith Melillo v. Terry Arden Heitland 880 N.W.2d 862 Minn. 2016
“Whether service of process was effective, and personal jurisdiction therefore exists, is a question of law that we review de novo.” Shamrock Dev.
Alan B. Fish, P. A. v. Scott Janson Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Alan B. Fish, P. A. v. Scott Janson Minn. Ct. App. 2016
See Shamrock Dev., (“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.”).
Excel Manufacturing, Inc. v. Todd Wondrow Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Excel Manufacturing, Inc. v. Todd Wondrow Minn. Ct. App. 2016
See Shamrock Dev., (stating that appellate courts “review the construction and application of the Minnesota Rules of Civil Procedure de novo”).
Enoch Klingbeil v. Krystal Lee Ramfjord Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Enoch Klingbeil v. Krystal Lee Ramfjord Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Capital One Bank USA, NA v. Gbenga J. Ekinnola Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Capital One Bank USA, NA v. Gbenga J. Ekinnola Minn. Ct. App. 2016
“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 Dev.
Jennifer L. DeCook, Respondents/Cross-Appellants v. Olmsted Medical Center, Inc., Brenda J. Hanson, R.N., and Darlene M. Pratt, R.N., … 875 N.W.2d 263 Minn. 2016
Jennifer L. DeCook, Respondents/Cross-Appellants v. Olmsted Medical Center, Inc., Brenda J. Hanson, R.N., and Darlene M. Pratt, R.N., … 875 N.W.2d 263 Minn. 2016
They argue that attorneys unlicensed in Minnesota have no authority to commence actions in Minnesota courts, and that because service of a valid summons confers personal jurisdiction over the defendant, see Shamrock Dev., service of a summons signed by an out-of-state attorney does not commence an action at, all.
Ann Dorothy Ruch v. Robbert P. Osterholt Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Ann Dorothy Ruch v. Robbert P. Osterholt Minn. Ct. App. 2015
3 “Whether service of process was effective, and personal jurisdiction therefore exists, is a question of law that we review de novo.” Shamrock Dev.
Keith Melillo v. Terry Arden Heitland Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Keith Melillo v. Terry Arden Heitland Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Ruth Unger v. AAA Insurance Company Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Ruth Unger v. AAA Insurance Company Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Thomas James Mitchell v. $6,429 of US Currency Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Thomas James Mitchell v. $6,429 of US Currency Minn. Ct. App. 2015
2 DECISION “Whether service of process was effective, and personal jurisdiction therefore exists, is a question of law that we review de novo.” Shamrock Dev.
In the Matter of the Welfare of the Child of: D. A. J., Sr. and C. A., Parents. Minn. Ct. App. 2015
In the Matter of the Welfare of the Child of: D. A. J., Sr. and C. A., Parents. Minn. Ct. App. 2015
“Whether service of process was effective, and personal jurisdiction therefore exists, is a question of law that we review de novo.” Shamrock Dev., –10 (Minn. App. 2001) (applying caselaw regarding the effectiveness of service in civil proceedings to evaluate whether a mother was properly served in a TPR proceeding).
Jennifer L. DeCook, Respondents/Cross-Appellants v. Olmsted Medical Center, Kenneth M. Palmer, M.D., Jack F. Perrone, M.D., Ashley Morrow Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Jennifer L. DeCook, Respondents/Cross-Appellants v. Olmsted Medical Center, Kenneth M. Palmer, M.D., Jack F. Perrone, M.D., Ashley Morrow Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Robert Meeker v. IDS Property Casualty Insurance Company 862 N.W.2d 43 Minn. 2015
Robert Meeker v. IDS Property Casualty Insurance Company 862 N.W.2d 43 Minn. 2015