Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Barth v. Stenwick, 761 N.W.2d 502.

33 citing documents.

In the Matter of the Minnesota Racing Commission’s Approval of Running Aces Casino, Hotel & Racetrack’s Amended Plan … Minn. Ct. App. 2026
“In addition to these four factors, a court applying collateral estoppel must be convinced that its application is fair.”
Aaron Olson v. Matthew Joseph Freeman, et al., Kappa Sigma 5th Street Brothers, LLC Minn. Ct. App. 2025
(stating collateral estoppel applies when, among other things, “there was a final judgment on the merits in [a] prior proceeding”).
Donald J Brown v. John Thomas Almeida, Erin Mari Almeida Minn. Ct. App. 2025
Robert W. Starbeck, individually, and As Trustee of the Arthur C. Starbeck Trust under agreement Dated August 21, … Minn. Ct. App. 2024
Robert W. Starbeck, individually, and As Trustee of the Arthur C. Starbeck Trust under agreement Dated August 21, … Minn. Ct. App. 2024
Ronald Hagle, et al v. Erickson, Bell, Beckman & Quinn, P.A., et al Minn. Ct. App. 2023
Belle Plaine MHP, LLC v. Brian Haugen Minn. Ct. App. 2023
ral estoppel bars the relitigation of an issue when: (1) the issue is identical to one in a prior adjudication; (2) there was a final judgment on the merits in the prior proceeding; (3) the estopped party was a party or in privity with a party to the prior adjudication; and (4) the estopped party was given a full and fair opportunity to be heard on the adjudicated issue.”
State of Minnesota v. Brian Anthony Varnado Minn. Ct. App. 2020
“Collateral estoppel, also known as issue preclusion, prohibits a party from relitigating issues that have been previously adjudicated.” d 502, 507 (Minn. App. 2009).
Catherine Marie Schaefer v. Brock William Fredin Minn. Ct. App. 2020
“Collateral estoppel, also known as i ssue preclusion, prohibits a party from relitigating issues that have been previously adjudicated.” d 502, 507 (Minn. App. 2009).
Raymond L. Semler v. Wendy K. McGowan, et al Minn. Ct. App. 2020
“Collateral estoppel, also 6 known as issue preclusion, prohibits a party from relitigating issues that have been previously adjudicat ed.” Barth v. Stenwick
In the Matter of Virginia Marie Carlson, Unlicensed Minn. Ct. App. 2019
“Collateral estoppel, also known as issue preclusion, prohibits a party from relitigating issues that have been previously adjudicated.” d 502, 507 (Min n. App. 2009).
Thomas Sullivan, as guardian and conservator for Marc L. Beeman v. Randy F. Boggio Minn. Ct. App. 2019
In the Matter of the Administrative Order Issued to Steven A. Hackbarth, individually, and dba Hackbarth Roofing Minn. Ct. App. 2018
“Where the doctrine of collateral estoppel precludes relitigation of an issue, there is no issue of material fact, and summary judgment is proper.” Barth v. Stenwick
All Finish Concrete, Inc. v. Erickson 899 N.W.2d 557 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
All Finish Concrete, Inc. v. Erickson 899 N.W.2d 557 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
“Where the doctrine of, collateral estoppel precludes relitigation of an issue, there is no issue of material fact, and summary judgment is proper.” (Minn.App.
In the Matter of the Petition of CitiMortgage, Inc., a New York corporation, relating to Certificate of Title … Minn. Ct. App. 2017
See Application of Schaefer to Register Title, 287 Minn. 490, 490, (holding that res judicata barred a claim of title asserted in a registration proceeding when the same claim had been asserted and dismissed with prejudice in a prior action between the same parties); (setting forth requirements for collateral estoppel, which are s imilar to requirements for res judicata but concern previously litigated issues rather than claims); Nussbaumer v. Fetrow , (stating that Minnesota does not permit col
Joseph Roach, et al v. County of Becker, Thomas Alinder, et al., Gary Heitkamp Construction, Inc., et al., … Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Thus, the previous opinions from this court are to be relied on as “law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel.” “Collateral estoppel, also known as issue preclusion, prohibits a party from relitigating issues that have been previously adjudicated.” d 502, 507 (Minn. App. 2009).
Michael Otto Hartmann v. Minnesota Department of Agriculture, et al Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Michael Otto Hartmann v. Minnesota Department of Agriculture, et al Minn. Ct. App. 2017
David Brian Pemrick v. Lori Ann Bucher, et al Minn. Ct. App. 2017
David Brian Pemrick v. Lori Ann Bucher, et al Minn. Ct. App. 2017
In the Matter of the Trust Agreement of Eugene L. Johnson u/t/a dated December 22, 2008 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
In the Matter of the Trust Agreement of Eugene L. Johnson u/t/a dated December 22, 2008 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
(res judicata), aff’d, (collateral estoppel).
In re the Matter of: Kristin Holly Scherman, on behalf of minor child, A. S v. Tad Gregory … Minn. Ct. App. 2015
In re the Matter of: Kristin Holly Scherman, on behalf of minor child, A. S v. Tad Gregory … Minn. Ct. App. 2015
and courts do not apply it rigidly but focus instead on whether an injustice would be worked upon the party upon whom the estoppel is urged.” (quotation omitted).
Thomas Joseph Daley v. Anne Elizabeth Daley, n/k/a Anne E. Patrick-Daley Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Thomas Joseph Daley v. Anne Elizabeth Daley, n/k/a Anne E. Patrick-Daley Minn. Ct. App. 2015
4 This court reviews a district court’s conclusions of law, constructions of statutes, and application of the law de novo.1 -08 (Minn. App. 2009).
In the Matter of the Welfare of the Children of: K. E. L. and J. L. W., Parents Minn. Ct. App. 2014
In the Matter of the Welfare of the Children of: K. E. L. and J. L. W., Parents Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Bd., (stating in addition to the four-factor test that “a court applying collateral estoppel must be convinced that its application is fair”); (holding that res judicata and collateral estoppel have limited application to family law matte
Curtis v. Altria Group, Inc. 792 N.W.2d 836 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
Curtis v. Altria Group, Inc. 792 N.W.2d 836 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
(quotations and citations omitted).
Hebert v. CITY OF FIFTY LAKES 784 N.W.2d 848 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
Hebert v. CITY OF FIFTY LAKES 784 N.W.2d 848 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
Common-law dedication requires the demonstration of “the landowner’s intent, express or implied, to have his land appropriated and devoted to a public use, and an acceptance of that use by the public.” (Minn.App.