Cited by

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

63 citing documents.

United Christian Fellowship Church, et al v. Spire Credit Union, Jennifer L. Urban, et al 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 v. Patrick Villella, et al Minn. Ct. App. 2024
Appellate courts “review the application of res judicata de novo.”
Gary Frodermann v. Chandler Feed Company, Hubbard Feeds Management Company 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 v. Brian Haugen 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 v. City of Biwabik, a Municipal Corporation , and Town of White, … 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 v. Scott D. Hillstrom, et al., Michael W. Haag, et al., Paul Chamberlain, et al., … 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, Patrick Frank Soboleski, et al … 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 v. Cody J. Haislet, et al Minn. Ct. App. 2021
16 Id.; (setting forth elements governing application of res judicata).
Ray Danielson v. Koronis Parts Inc., Department of Employment and Economic Development Minn. Ct. App. 2021
“We review the application of res judicata de novo.” Rucker v. Schmidt
Community Finance Group, Inc. v. Main Street Otsego, LLC, LandCor Companies, Inc., Robert L. Fields, Patricia Fields, ABP, … Minn. Ct. App. 2020
In re the Matter of: Margaret Patricia Fagre, and o/b/o minor children v. Adam Lee Fagre 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 v. Paul Schnell Minn. Ct. App. 2020
“We review the appli cation of res judicata de novo.”
Philip Carlson, Virginia Carlson v. Minnesota Department of Labor and Industry, Bryan Crane, Karen Crane 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 v. El Rancho Manana, Inc., et al Minn. Ct. App. 2020
Jeffrey James Nathe v. Kevin Lee Thompson 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 v. Tom Carlson, et al 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 v. Ivy Tower Minneapolis LLC, et al. Respondents, Wischermann Holdings, LLC, et … Minn. Ct. App. 2019
d 114, 117 (Minn. 2011).
Gary White, Jeffrey White, et al v. Premier Bank, et al., Mark Smith 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 v. Cynthia Tomenes, et al Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota v. Pedro Antonio Lawler Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Adherent Laboratories, Inc. v. Mark DiPietro, et al 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 v. Christenson Law Office, PLLC, et al Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Donald Sealock, derivatively on behalf of St. Michael Mall, Inc. v. John A. Robeck, Michael F. Hosko, Ronald … Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Higher Dimension Materials, Inc. v. Performance Fabrics, Inc., et. al Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Jayson Dock, et al v. Waconia Landing Homeowners Association, Inc. 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 v. M & S Properties LLC, Mohammad Sabri d/b/a J&S Services Ltd. 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, et al v. The Estate of Robert E. Pape, et al Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Marjorie Gowan, et al v. The Estate of Robert E. Pape, et al 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, et al v. The Bank of New York Mellon, as Trustee of the Benefit of CWMBS … Minn. Ct. App. 2015