Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite In Re UnitedHealth Group Inc. Shareholder Derivative Litigation, 754 N.W.2d 544.

44 citing documents.

Cyrenus Rubald, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
“A shareholder derivative suit is a creation of equity in which a shareholder may, in effect, step into the corporation’s shoes and seek in its right the restitution he could not demand in his own.” In re UnitedHealth Group Inc. S’holder Derivative Litig., (quotation omitted).
Susan Schneider, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
Inc. S’holder Derivative Litig., d 544, 550 (Minn. 2008) (quotation omitted).
Anthony Novak, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
Inc. S’holder Derivative Litig., n.5 (Minn. 2008) (stating “[t]he demand requirement may be excused, however, when the board suffers from a conflict of interest regarding the subject matter of the derivative suit”).
William M. Ross, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
Inc. S’holder Derivative Litig., (quotation omitted).
Dustin Ward, et al., Appellants, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
Inc. S’holder Derivative Litig., d 544, 550 (Minn. 2008) (quotation omitted).
Kathryn Ward Blum, et al., Appellants, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
“A shareholder derivative suit is a creation of equity in which a shareholder may, in effect, step into the corporation’s shoes and seek in its right 15 the restitution he could not demand in his own.” In re UnitedHealth Group Inc. S’holder Derivative Litig., (quotation omitted).
Jeffery D. Gordon, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Inc. S’holder Derivative Litig., (quotation omitted) .
Donald Sealock, derivatively on behalf of St. Michael Mall, Inc., Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Inc. S’holder Derivative Litig., (quotation omitted).
In re Medtronic, Inc. Shareholder Litigation 900 N.W.2d 401 Minn. 2017
In re Medtronic, Inc. Shareholder Litigation 900 N.W.2d 401 Minn. 2017
Inc. S’holder Derivative Litig., (explaining that a shareholder bringing a derivative claim “step[s] into the corporation’s shoes” to “bring suit against wrongdoers on behalf of the corporation” (citations and internal quotation marks omitted)); Janssen v. Best & Flanagan, (“Derivative suits allo
Blum v. Thompson 901 N.W.2d 203 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Blum v. Thompson 901 N.W.2d 203 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
“A shareholder derivative suit is a creation of equity in which a shareholder may, in effect, step into the corporation’s shoes and seek in its right the restitution he could not demand in his own.” In re United-Health Group Inc. S’holder Derivative Litig., (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Kristyn Nicole Schouweiler 887 N.W.2d 22 Minn. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Kristyn Nicole Schouweiler 887 N.W.2d 22 Minn. 2016
James L. Mandel v. Multiband Corporation Minn. Ct. App. 2016
James L. Mandel v. Multiband Corporation Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Inc. S’holder Derivative Litig., Janssen v. Best & Flanagan, (noting that the “business judgment rule was developed by state and federal courts to protect boards of directors against shareholder claims that the board made unprofitable business decisions”).
Wayzata Nissan, LLC v. Nissan North America, Inc., Stephen J. McDaniels 875 N.W.2d 279 Minn. 2016
Wayzata Nissan, LLC v. Nissan North America, Inc., Stephen J. McDaniels 875 N.W.2d 279 Minn. 2016
State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v. Angela Mary Lennartson, Katie Foss 872 N.W.2d 524 Minn. 2015
Followed State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v. Angela Mary Lennartson, Katie Foss 872 N.W.2d 524 Minn. 2015
Inc. S'holder Derivative Litig., (distinguishing statement in prior case that was based on a treatise and not precedent).
328 Barry Avenue, LLC v. Nolan Properties Group, LLC 871 N.W.2d 745 Minn. 2015
328 Barry Avenue, LLC,Appellant v. Nolan Properties Group, LLC, and third party v. Carciofini Company, third party Marvin … Minn. 2015
328 Barry Avenue, LLC v. Nolan Properties Group, LLC 871 N.W.2d 745 Minn. 2015
Registration Sys., Inc., (quoting In re United-Health Grp., Inc., ).
328 Barry Avenue, LLC,Appellant v. Nolan Properties Group, LLC, and third party v. Carciofini Company, third party Marvin … Minn. 2015
Registration Sys., Inc., (quoting In re 8 UnitedHealth Grp., Inc., ).
Conga Corporation, d/b/a Conga Latin Bistro v. Commissioner of Revenue, Relator. 868 N.W.2d 41 Minn. 2015
Conga Corporation, d/b/a Conga Latin Bistro v. Commissioner of Revenue, Relator. 868 N.W.2d 41 Minn. 2015
F-D Oil Co., d at 707; see also Savig v. First Nat‘l Bank of Omaha, (“ ‘[A]ll else being equal, the burden is better placed on the party with easier access to relevant information.’ ”) (quoting In re United Health Grp., Inc. S’holder Derivative Litig., ).
Lyon Financial Services, Incorporated, d/b/a U.S. Bancorp Business Equipment Finance Group v. Illinois Paper and Copier Company 848 N.W.2d 539 Minn. 2014
Lyon Financial Services, Incorporated, d/b/a U.S. Bancorp Business Equipment Finance Group v. Illinois Paper and Copier Company 848 N.W.2d 539 Minn. 2014
Inc. S’holder Derivative Litig., -50 (Minn. 2008).
J.E.B. v. Danks 785 N.W.2d 741 Minn. 2010
J.E.B. v. Danks 785 N.W.2d 741 Minn. 2010
(“Thus, the statute’s good faith requirement is entirely unlike its reasonableness requirement; the former sets forth the particular state of mind required of a corporate director, while the latter mandates that any decision be reasonable.”).
Sampair v. Village of Birchwood 784 N.W.2d 65 Minn. 2010
Sampair v. Village of Birchwood 784 N.W.2d 65 Minn. 2010
Further we have stated that “all else being equal, the burden is better placed on the party with easier access to relevant information.” (internal quotation marks omitted).
Lickteig v. Kolar 782 N.W.2d 810 Minn. 2010
Lickteig v. Kolar 782 N.W.2d 810 Minn. 2010
In re UnitedHealth Group Inc. S’holder Derivative Litig.
Savig v. First National Bank of Omaha 781 N.W.2d 335 Minn. 2010
Savig v. First National Bank of Omaha 781 N.W.2d 335 Minn. 2010
A basic principle in allocating a burden of proof is that “all else being equal, the burden is better placed on the party with easier access to relevant information.” In re UnitedHealth Group Inc. S’holder Derivative Litig., (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted).
State v. Knoch 781 N.W.2d 170 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
State v. Enoch 781 N.W.2d 170 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
State v. Enoch 781 N.W.2d 170 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
It may be true that appellate courts generally prefer certified questions that may be answered with an unqualified “yes” or “no.” See Minnesota Citizens Concerned for Life, -30 (Minn.2005) (recognizing general policy of answering certified questions with unqualified yes or no); -50 (Minn.2008) (reformulating question certified under Minn. Stat. § 480.065 , subd.
State v. Knoch 781 N.W.2d 170 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
It may be true that appellate courts generally prefer certified questions that may be answered with an unqualified "yes" or "no." See Minnesota Citizens Concerned for Life, -30 (Minn.2005) (recognizing general policy of answering certified questions with unqualified yes or no); -50 (Minn.2008) (reformulating question certified under Minn. Stat. § 480.065 , subd.
Jackson v. Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. 770 N.W.2d 487 Minn. 2009
Jackson v. Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. 770 N.W.2d 487 Minn. 2009
We are to construe a statute “as a whole so as to harmonize and give effect to all its parts, and where possible, no word, phrase, or sentence will be held superfluous, void, or insignificant.” (citations omitted); see also Minn.Stat.
Blohm v. Kelly 765 N.W.2d 147 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
Blohm v. Kelly 765 N.W.2d 147 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
“A shareholder derivative suit is a creation of equity in which a shareholder may, in effect, step into the corporation’s shoes and seek in its right the restitution he could not demand in his own.” In re UnitedHealth Group Inc. S’holder Derivative Litig., (quotation omitted).