Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Moorhead Economic Development Authority v. Anda, 789 N.W.2d 860.

209 citing documents.

In re the Estate of John Kenneth Rutt, a/k/a John K. Rutt and John Rutt Minn. Ct. App. 2023
Daniel R. Pakonen, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
v. Anda, (quotation omitted).
Bradley Lewis, et al., Respondents, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
v. Anda, (explaining that, generally, issues not raised or argued in appellant’s principal brief cannot be raised in a reply brief); (stating that appellate courts generally address only those questions previously presented to and considered by t
Joyce Walsh, et al., Appellants, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
Mark Schwandt, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
Ingrid Jorgensen, et al., Respondents, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
v. Anda, (repeating that we do not generally address arguments raised for the first time in a party’s reply brief).
Susan Carol Sohn, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
v. Anda, (explaining that in general, issues not raised or argued in appellant’s principal brief cannot be raised in a reply brief).
In re the Marriage of: Matthew Beland, et al., Appellants, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
Original Jurisdiction Minn. 2023
v. Anda, (holding that issues not raised or argued in a principal brief cannot be raised in a reply brief).
Patrick Schaffer, et al., Respondents, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
Barbara Henry, Minn. 2023
In Re: Henry Hickman, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
In the Application of Jose Luis Gutierrez for a change of legal name to Lazarus Twist. Minn. Ct. App. 2022
v. Anda, (stating that generally, issues not raised or argued in appellant’s principal brief cannot be raised in a reply brief).
A minor child by his mother and natural guardian, Chelsea Rose, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
In re the Marriage of: Sneha Singh, petitioner, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
v. Anda, (civil appeal); d 226, 230 (Minn. App. 2011) (family appeal).
Robert Sharot, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
v. Anda, d 860, 865 (Minn. 2010) (involving eminent domain and reduction of property value caused by stigma); -02 (Minn. 1997) (considering appropriate tax rate based on actual contamination cleanup costs and contamination stigma rates).
Joseph Roach, et al., Appellants, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
Peter Gerard Lonergan, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
v. Anda, (stating issues not raised or argued in appellant’s principal brief generally cannot be raised in a reply brief).
Derrick D. Turner, Relator, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
Craig Scherber & Associates, Inc., Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
v. Anda, (“In the past, we have declined to consider issues raised for the first time in a reply brief, particularly when the theory was not raised at the district court level.”).
Minnesota Voters Alliance, et al., Appellants, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
v. Anda , Hunter v. Anchor Bank, N.A.
A21-0035 Minn. Ct. App. 2021
v. Anda, see Wood v. Diamonds Sports Bar & Grill, Inc. , (stating that arguments in reply brief that neither were raised in appellant’s principal brief nor respond to respondent’s brief “[are] not properly before [the court of appeals]”), review denied (Minn. Feb.
Jomari E Alexander, Sr., Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
v. Anda , (discussing the principle that issues not raised or argued in an appellant’s principal brief cannot be raised in a reply brief); Wood v. Diamonds Sports Bar & Grill, Inc., (“If an argument is raised in a reply brief but not raised in an appellant’s main brief
In the Matter of the Determination of the Need for an Environmental Impact Statement for the Nolte Family … Minn. Ct. App. 2021
Molly Elizabeth Joyce, petitioner, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
v. Anda, Wood v. Diamonds Sports Bar & Grill, Inc., (“If an argument is raised in a reply brief but not raised in an appellant’s main brie f, and it exceeds the scope of the respondent’s brief, it is not properly before [the court of appeals] .
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
Freedom Kerkula, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
Maine Heights LLC, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
v. Anda, n.2 (Minn. App. 1990), review denied (Minn. Sept.
Daniel J. Cafferty, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
Minn. 2020
David Timp, et al., Respondents, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
v. Anda, (stating that, generally, issues not raised or argued in appellant’s principal brief cannot be raised in a reply brief).
In re the Billie V. Darkenwald Revocable Trust, dated January 21, 1983, restated February 5, 1999, as amended, … Minn. Ct. App. 2020
v. Anda, (“[I]f the plaintiff is entitled to recover on one ground, a court need not consider the other grounds.”).
State of Minnesota, by its Commissioner of Transportation, Minn. 2020
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
v. Anda , (quotation omitted).
James A. Compart, et al., Appellants, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
Town of White Bear, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
In re the Matter of the Civil Commitment of: Matthew Lee DeRosia. Minn. Ct. App. 2020
Michael Esaw, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
Rodrigo Esparza, et al., Respondents, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
, A18-1302 Minn. Ct. App. 2019
v. Anda, (quotation omitted).
Lynda Jo Blom, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
A18-1870 Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Jason Carlson, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
v. Anda, -89 (Minn. 2010).
, A18-1214, A18-1406 Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Anderson v. Indep. Sch. Dist. 696 924 N.W.2d 911 Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Anderson v. Indep. Sch. Dist. 696 924 N.W.2d 911 Minn. Ct. App. 2019
v. Anda , , 892 (Minn. 2010).
In re Decision to Deny the Petitions for a Contested Case Hearing 924 N.W.2d 638 Minn. Ct. App. 2019
In re Decision to Deny the Petitions for a Contested Case Hearing 924 N.W.2d 638 Minn. Ct. App. 2019
v. Anda , , 887 (Minn. 2010) (explaining that issues not raised or argued in appellant's principal brief generally cannot be raised in a reply brief).
Lund v. Lund 924 N.W.2d 274 Minn. Ct. App. 2019

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by