Cited by

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

63 citing documents.

Ronald Hagle v. The Bank of New York Mellon, as Trustee of the Benefit of CWMBS Inc., Ryan … Minn. Ct. App. 2015
claim involved the same set of factual circumstances; (2) the earlier claim involved the same parties or their privities; (3) there was a final judgment on the merits; (4) the estopped party had a full and fair opportunity to litigate the matter.’” Brown- Wilbert, Inc. v. Copeland Buhl & Co., (quoting Hauschildt, d at 840); 8 (Minn. 2011).
Elfi E. Janssen v. Lommen, Abdo, Cole, King & Stageberg, P. A., Sibley Holdings, LLC Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Elfi E. Janssen v. Lommen, Abdo, Cole, King & Stageberg, P. A., Sibley Holdings, LLC Minn. Ct. App. 2014
.”); (holding that when an attorney is accused of fraud, “general principles of attorney immunity [are] not appropriate”), aff’d
Haugen Nutrition & Equipment, LLC v. United Prairie Bank of Mountain Lake Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Haugen Nutrition & Equipment, LLC v. United Prairie Bank of Mountain Lake Minn. Ct. App. 2014
The elements of res judicata are “(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.”
James Klapmeier v. Joseph Michael Ebel Minn. Ct. App. 2014
James Klapmeier v. Joseph Michael Ebel Minn. Ct. App. 2014
“Res judicata is an affirmative defense that must be pleaded and proven by the party asserting it.” see also Minn. R. Civ.
In re the Matter of: Karen Brys n/k/a Karen Warn v. Timothy Peterson Minn. Ct. App. 2014
In re the Matter of: Karen Brys n/k/a Karen Warn v. Timothy Peterson Minn. Ct. App. 2014
In re the Irrevocable Trust of Kristin N. Kuelbs, Donald C. Hill and Edwardena C. Hill, Trustees In … Minn. Ct. App. 2014
In re the Irrevocable Trust of Kristin N. Kuelbs, Donald C. Hill and Edwardena C. Hill, Trustees In … Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Res judicata bars a claim when four elements are met: “(1) the earlier claim involved the same set of factual circumstances; (2) the earlier claim involved the same 10 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.”
Beaulieu v. Minnesota Department of Human Services 825 N.W.2d 716 Minn. 2013
Beaulieu v. Minnesota Department of Human Services 825 N.W.2d 716 Minn. 2013
“Res judicata and collateral es-toppel are related doctrines.” , 117 n. 4 (Minn.2011).

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by