Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Rucker v. Schmidt, 794 N.W.2d 114.

63 citing documents.

United Christian Fellowship Church, et al., Appellants, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
As applicable here, although attorneys are generally “immune from liability to third persons for actions arising out of that professional relationship,” that immunity does not apply when an attorney “commits an intentional tort.” -12 (Minn. App. 2009), aff’d, (Minn. Jan.
Christopher Villella, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2024
Appellate courts “review the application of res judicata de novo.”
Gary Frodermann, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2024
4 Appellate courts review de novo the application of res judicata.2
EDF-RE US Development, LLC v. RES America Construction, Inc. Minn. Ct. App. 2024
EDF-RE US Development, LLC v. RES America Construction, Inc. Minn. Ct. App. 2024
Belle Plaine MHP, LLC, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
Res judicata bars “a subsequent claim when : (1) the earlier claim involved the same set of factual circumstances; (2) the earlier claim involved the same parties or their privies; (3) there was a final judgment on the merits; and (4) the estopped party had a full and fair opportunity to litigate the matter.” (footnote omitted).
Voyageurs Retreat Community Association, et al., Appellants, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
as to be identified with them in interest , and consequently to be affected with them by the litigation.” (quotation omitted).
Willow Run Partners, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
Privity exists where a person is “so identified in interest with another that he represents the same legal right.” Rucker v. Schmidt
In re The Robert Preus and Donna Mae Preus Lake Property Family Trust. Minn. Ct. App. 2021
Res judicata Res judicata can bar relitigation of a claim when: “(1) the earlier claim involved the same set of factual circumstances; (2) the earlier claim involved the same parties or their privies; (3) there was a final judgment on the merits; and (4) the estopped party had a full and fair opportunity to litigate the matter.”
Timothy Soboleski, Individually and as Personal Representative of the Estate of Frank Soboleski, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
Res judicata bars relitigation of a claim wh en: “(1) the earlier claim involved the same set of factual circumstances; (2) the ear lier claim involved the same parties or their privies; (3) there was a final judgment on the merits; and (4) the estopped party had a full and fair opportunity to litigate the matter.”
William O. Bradley, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
16 Id.; (setting forth elements governing application of res judicata).
Ray Danielson, Relator, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
“We review the application of res judicata de novo.” Rucker v. Schmidt
Community Finance Group, Inc., Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
In re the Matter of: Margaret Patricia Fagre, and o/b/o minor children, petitioner, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
Res judicata can 4 bar relitigating a subsequent claim when : “(1) the earlier claim involved the same set of factual circumstances; (2) the earlier claim in volved the same parties or their privies; (3) there was a final judgment on the merits; and (4) the estopped party had a full and fair opportunity to litigate the matter.” (footnote omitted).
Jerry Duwenhoegger, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
“We review the appli cation of res judicata de novo.”
Philip Carlson, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
Res judicata is an “absolute bar” to a later claim when: “(1) the earlier claim involved the same se t of factual circumstances; (2) the earlier claim involved the same parties or their privies; (3) there was a final judgment on the merits; and (4) the estopped party had a full and fair opportunity to litigate the matter.” Rucker v. Schmidt , (footnote omitted).
Dustin Ward, et al., Appellants, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
Jeffrey James Nathe, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Res judicata is an absolute bar to litigating a subsequent claim when “(1) the earlier claim i nvolved the same set of factual 5 circumstances; (2) the earlier claim involved the same parties or their privies; (3) there was a final judgment on the merits; and (4) the estopped party had a full and fair opportunity to litigate the matter.”
Carl Green, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
(“We review the application of res judicata de novo.”); Hauschildt v. 5 Beckingham, (“Whether coll ateral estoppel precludes litigation of an issue is a mixed question of law and fact that we review de novo.”).
Streambend Properties II, LLC, et al., Appellants, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
d 114, 117 (Minn. 2011).
Gary White, Plaintiff, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
D E C I S I O N Summary judgment should be granted “when there are no genuine issues of material fact and either party is entitled to judg ment as a matter of law.”
McKraut Holdings, LLC, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Adherent Laboratories, Inc., Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
(“[T]he principal exercis ed control over the agent.”); (“ We have not had occasion to address 9 whether the attorney -client relationship is analogous to that of principal and agent and therefore sufficient to establish privity.
Maria Olson, et al., Appellants, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Donald Sealock, derivatively on behalf of St. Michael Mall, Inc., Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Higher Dimension Materials, Inc., Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Jayson Dock, et al., Appellants, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
d 114, 117 (Minn. 2011).
Breaker v. Bemidji State University 899 N.W.2d 515 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Breaker v. Bemidji State University 899 N.W.2d 515 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Res judicata bars a subsequent claim if: “(1) the earlier claim involved the same set of factual circumstances; (2) the earlier claim involved the same parties or their privies; (3) there was a final judgment on the merits; and (4) the estopped party had a full and fair opportunity to litigate the matter.”
Busad Kheyre, et al., Appellants, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
“We review the application of res judicata de novo.”
Lenny N. Anderson v. City of St. Paul Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Lenny N. Anderson v. City of St. Paul Minn. Ct. App. 2016
The Bank of New York Mellon, as Trustee For The Certificateholders Of CWABS Inc., Asset-backed Certificates, Series 2007-6 … Minn. Ct. App. 2016
The Bank of New York Mellon, as Trustee For The Certificateholders Of CWABS Inc., Asset-backed Certificates, Series 2007-6 … Minn. Ct. App. 2016
& n.4 (Minn. 2011); Care Inst., d at 446-47.
Reichel Investments, L.P. v. Craig A. Reichel Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Reichel Investments, L.P. v. Craig A. Reichel Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Marjorie Gowan v. The Estate of Robert E. Pape Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Marjorie Gowan v. The Estate of Robert E. Pape Minn. Ct. App. 2016
“Privity expresses the idea that as to certain matters and in certain circumstances persons who are not parties to an action but who are connected with it in their interests are affected by the judgment with reference to interests involved in the action, as if they were parties.” (quotation omitted).
In re the Matter of the Petition of Nationstar Mortgage, LLC, For a New Certificate of Title After … Minn. Ct. App. 2015
In re the Matter of the Petition of Nationstar Mortgage, LLC, For a New Certificate of Title After … Minn. Ct. App. 2015
In re the Matter of the Petition of Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, as Trustee. Minn. Ct. App. 2015
In re the Matter of the Petition of Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, as Trustee. 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
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).
Bemidji Township v. City of Bemidji, Northern Township, Greater Bemidji Area Joint Planning Board Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Bemidji Township v. City of Bemidji, Northern Township, Greater Bemidji Area Joint Planning Board Minn. Ct. App. 2015
volved the same parties or their privities; (3) there was a final judgment on the merits; 4 (4) the estopped party had a full and fair opportunity to litigate the matter.’” Brown- Wilbert, Inc. v. Copeland Buhl & Co., ()
Christina Wagner v. Mark Sowl Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Christina Wagner v. Mark Sowl Minn. Ct. App. 2015
“Because the circumstances in which privity will be found cannot be precisely defined, we have held that determining whether parties are in privity requires a careful 7 examination of the circumstances of each case.”
Ronald Hagle v. The Bank of New York Mellon, as Trustee of the Benefit of CWMBS Inc., Ryan … Minn. Ct. App. 2015