Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Whitaker v. 3M Co., 764 N.W.2d 631.

27 citing documents.

Minnesota Police and Peace Officers Association v. Minnesota Board of Peace Officer Standards and Training Minn. Ct. App. 2026
Whitaker v. 3M Co., d 631, 635 (Minn. App. 2009).
Lorenzo Tejeda, et al v. David Maceda Minn. Ct. App. 2025
For example, “the facts on which [a] trial court acts in granting a temporary injunction are, by the nature of the situation, provisional.” Dahlberg Bros., see also Whitaker v. 3M Co., (stating that “factual findings at the class-certification stage are not binding on the ultimate trier of fact”), rev. denied (Minn. July 22, 2009).
Joseph Thomas Gardner v. State of Minnesota, Department of Human Services, HealthPartners Minn. Ct. App. 2025
See Whitaker v. 3M Co. , 0 n.1 (Minn. App. 2009) (explaining that this court’s “role as an error-correcting court does not extend to making findings in the first instance”), rev. denied (Minn. July 22, 2009); (explaining that “particularized findings are necessary to faci
In re the Marriage of: Debra Jean Berndt-Tuttle v. Jason James Tuttle Minn. Ct. App. 2023
See Whitaker v. 3M Co ., n.1 (Minn. App. 2009) (“[O]ur role as an error -correcting court does not extend to making factual findings.”) Respondent was 40 at the time of his marriage to appellant; the 9 largest of his retirement accounts was his union account; and most of his work in the union was done prior to the marriage.
In the Matter of the Civil Commitment of: Charles Jeremy Epperson Minn. Ct. App. 2020
Whitaker v. 3M Co. , 640 (Minn. App. 2009) , review denied (Minn. July 22, 2009).
Bacon v. Bd. of Pensions of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in Am. 930 N.W.2d 437 Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Bacon v. Bd. of Pensions of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in Am. 930 N.W.2d 437 Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Whitaker v. 3M Co. , , 635 (Minn. App. 2009), review denied (Minn. July 22, 2009).
Michael Schemel v. Vermilion Capital Management, Department of Employment and Economic Development Minn. Ct. App. 2018
The four d ecisions referring to the 40 percent penalty applicable to 2 DEED asserts that “[i]t is also undisputed that Schemel was paid a commission of $1,750 during the week of October 8, 2017,” which the ULJ “overlooked.” We will not make findings regarding evidence that the ULJ “overlooked.” See Whitaker v. 3M Co. , n. 1 (Minn. App. 2009) (explaining that “ our role as an error-correcting court does not extend to making factual findings in the first instance”) , review denied (Minn. July 22,
State of Minnesota v. Jorge Armando Benavides Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Kucera, 275 Minn. at 254-55, d at 183; (holding that the court of appeals exceeds its scope of review by “reweighing the evidence and finding its own facts”); Whitaker v. 3M Co., n.1 (Minn. App. 2009) (“[O]ur role as an error-correcting court does not extend to making factual findings in the first instance.”), review denied (Minn. July 22, 2009).
Lifespan of Minnesota, Inc. v. Minneapolis Public Schools, Special School District No. 1 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Lifespan of Minnesota, Inc. v. Minneapolis Public Schools, Special School District No. 1 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
See Whitaker v. 3M Co., n.1 (Minn. App. 2009) (“our role as an error- correcting court does not extend to making factual findings in the first instance”).
Ferdinand Leo Gams, Jr. v. Steven Ronald Houghton 869 N.W.2d 60 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Ferdinand Leo Gams, Jr. v. Steven Ronald Houghton 869 N.W.2d 60 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Id.; see also Whitaker v. 3M Co., (stating that district court, and not this court, “must address and resolve [relevant] factual disputes”).
In re Guardianship of DeYoung 801 N.W.2d 211 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
In re Guardianship of DeYoung 801 N.W.2d 211 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
Whitaker v. 3M Co., review denied (Minn. Jul.
Curtis v. Altria Group, Inc. 792 N.W.2d 836 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
Vasseei v. Schmitty & Sons School Buses Inc. 793 N.W.2d 747 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
Vasseei v. Schmitty & Sons School Buses Inc. 793 N.W.2d 747 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
7(d)(2); (holding in the family-law context that a trial court abuses its discretion by improperly applying the law); Whitaker v. 3M Co., (“[I]t is an abuse of discretion when the district court improperly applies the law.”), review denied (Minn. July 22, 2009).
Curtis v. Altria Group, Inc. 792 N.W.2d 836 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
“[I]t is clear that our review of [a] district court’s certification decision should be for abuse of discretion.” Whitaker v. 3M Co., review denied (Minn. July 22, 2009).
Kelly v. Ambassador Press, Inc. 792 N.W.2d 103 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
Kelly v. Ambassador Press, Inc. 792 N.W.2d 103 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
Whitaker v. 3M Co., review denied (Minn. July 22, 2009).
U.S. Bank N.A. v. Cold Spring Granite Co. 788 N.W.2d 160 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
U.S. Bank N.A. v. Cold Spring Granite Co. 788 N.W.2d 160 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
See Whitaker v. 3M Co., , 640 n. 1 (Minn.App.2009) (explaining that “our role as an [appellate] court does not extend to making factual findings in the first instance”).
Marriage of Angell v. Angell 777 N.W.2d 32 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
Marriage of Angell v. Angell 777 N.W.2d 32 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
See Whitaker v. 3M Co., , 640 n. 1 (Minn.App.2009) (“[0]ur role ...
Friend v. Gopher Co., Inc. 771 N.W.2d 33 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
Friend v. Gopher Co., Inc. 771 N.W.2d 33 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
See Whitaker v. 3M Co., , 640 n. 1 (Minn.App.2009) (explaining that “our role as an [appellate] court does not extend to making factual findings in the first instance”).