Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Seehus v. Bor-Son Construction, Inc., 783 N.W.2d 144.

51 citing documents.

In the Matter of the Welfare of the Child(ren) of: L. A. B. and C. R. L., Parents Minn. Ct. App. 2025
In the Matter of the Welfare of the Child(ren) of: L. A. B. and C. R. L., Parents Minn. Ct. App. 2025
Servs., d 42, 46 (Minn. 2024) (citing Seehus v. Bor-Son Constr., Inc., ).
Keith D Hagfors, as Trustee for the Next of Kin of Sara E Hagfors, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
4 “Subject-matter jurisdiction is the court’s authority to hear the type of dispute at issue and to grant the type of relief sought.” Seehus v. Bor-Son Constr., Inc., d 144, 147 (Minn. 2010).
Todd Robert Reihs, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
But he agreed during oral argument that subject-matter jurisdiction cannot be “conferred by consent of the parties.” Seehus v. Bor-Son Constr., Inc., (quotation omitted).
Joseph Rued v. Commissioner of Human Services Minn. 2024
Joseph Rued v. Commissioner of Human Services Minn. 2024
Seehus v. Bor-Son Constr., Inc.
In the Matter of: Minn. Ct. App. 2024
Constr., Inc., d 144, 147 (Minn. 2010).
Benda for Common-sense, a Minnesota Non-Profit Corporation v. Denise Anderson, Director of Rice ... Minn. Ct. App. 2023
Benda for Common-sense, a Minnesota Non-Profit Corporation v. Denise Anderson, Director of Rice ... Minn. Ct. App. 2023
“Subject-matter jurisdiction is the court’s authority to hear the type of dispute at issue and to grant the type of relief sought.” Seehus v. Bor-Son Constr., Inc., d 144, 147 (Minn. 2010).
In re the Matter of Joseph Rued, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
Seehus v. Bor-Son Constr., Inc.
In the Matter of the Welfare of the Child of: S.B.G., Parent. Minn. 2023
See Seehus v. Bor–Son Constr., Inc., (“Defects in subject-matter jurisdiction may be raised at any time, and cannot be waived by the parties.”).
Lavonia M. Bell, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
“Subject-matter jurisdiction is the court’s authority to hear the type of dispute at issue and to grant the type of relief sought.” Seehus v. Bor-Son Constr., Inc.
Workers’ Compensation Court of Appeals Anderson, J. Concurring in part, dissenting in part, Daniel Bierbach, Chutich, J. Minn. 2021
Although the WCCA may not interpret and apply foreign law, see, e.g., Martin v. Morrison Trucking, Inc., it may determine certain questions ancillary to a compensation claim, see, e.g., Seehus v. Bor-Son Constr., Inc., d 144, 152 (Minn. 2010), or look to foreign law for instruction in limited circumstances, see, e.g., Sundby v. City of St.
Minn. 2021
“Subject matter jurisdiction is the court’s authority to hear the type of dispute at issue and to grant the type of relief sought.” Seehus v. Bor-Son Constr., Inc.
A20-1369 Minn. Ct. App. 2021
“Subject-matter jurisdiction is the court’s authority to hear the type of dispute at issue and to grant the type of relief sought.” Seehus v. Bor-Son Constr., Inc.
Irv’s Boomin’ Fireworks, LLC, et al., Appellants, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
“Subject-matter jurisdiction is the court’s authority to hear the type of dispute at issue and to grant the type of relief sought.” Seehus v. Bor –Son Constr., Inc., .
In the Matter of the Civil Commitment of: Edward Everett Urbanek. Minn. Ct. App. 2019
“Subject-matter jurisdiction is the court’s authority to hear the type of dispute at issue and to grant the type of relief sought.” Seehus v. Bor-Son Constr., Inc., d 144, 147 (Minn. 2010 ).
In the Matter of the Lindmark Endowment for Corporate-Business Ethics Fund. Minn. Ct. App. 2019
“Subject-matter jurisdiction is the court’s authority to hear the type of dispute at issue and to grant the type of relief sought.” Seehus v. Bor-Son Constr., Inc.
Johnson v. State 916 N.W.2d 674 Minn. 2018
Johnson v. State 916 N.W.2d 674 Minn. 2018
3 See McCullough & Sons, Inc. v. City of Vadnais Heights , , 585 (Minn. 2016) (citing Seehus v. Bor-Son Constr., Inc. , , 147 (Minn. 2010) ) (noting that subject-matter jurisdiction may not be waived by the parties).
A17-0883 Minn. 2018
And, by pleading guilty, Johnson did not forfeit his righ t to make this jurisdictional argument.3 See McCullough & Sons, Inc. v. City of Vadnais Heights , (citing Seehus v. Bor -Son Constr., Inc. , ) (noting that subject-matter jurisdiction may not be waived by the parties).
A17-1552 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
“Subject-matter jurisdiction is the court’s authority to hear the type of dispute at issue and to grant the type of relief sought.” Seehus v. Bor–Son Constr., Inc.
In the Matter of the Welfare of the Child of: G. R., Parent. Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Seehus v. Bor -Son Constr., Inc.
Michael Bliss, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
“Subject-matter jurisdiction is the court’s au thority to hear the type of dispute at issue and to grant the type of relief sought.” Seehus v. Bor-Son Constr., Inc., d 144, 147 (Minn. 2010).
Linert v. MacDonald 901 N.W.2d 664 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Linert v. MacDonald 901 N.W.2d 664 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Subject-matter jurisdiction refers to the tribunal’s “authority to hear the type of dispute at issue and to grant the type of relief sought,” Seehus v. Bor-Son Constr., Inc.
Itasca County, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
“Subject-matter jurisdiction is the court’s authority to hear the type of dispute at issue and to grant the type of relief sought.” Seehus v. Bor-Son Const., Inc.
Elisea Cervantes Anzures v. Michele Leann Ward, City of Saint Paul 890 N.W.2d 127 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Elisea Cervantes Anzures v. Michele Leann Ward, City of Saint Paul 890 N.W.2d 127 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Seehus v. Bor-Son Constr., Inc., (citations omitted); n.1 (Minn. 1996) (stating that 4 “order denying a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction is immediately appealable of right”).
McCullough and Sons, Inc. v. City of Vadnais Heights, A14-1992 883 N.W.2d 580 Minn. 2016
McCullough and Sons, Inc. v. City of Vadnais Heights, A14-1992 883 N.W.2d 580 Minn. 2016
See Seehus v. Bor-Son Constr., Inc., (stating that subject-matter jurisdiction cannot be waived by the parties).
Ramone Robinson v. City of Minneapolis, Department of Regulatory Services Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Ramone Robinson v. City of Minneapolis, Department of Regulatory Services Minn. Ct. App. 2016
DECISION “Subject-matter jurisdiction is the court’s authority to hear the type of dispute at issue and to grant the type of relief sought.” Seehus v. Bor-Son Constr., Inc., d 144, 147 (Minn. 2010).
Mark R. Zweber v. Credit River Township Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Mark R. Zweber v. Credit River Township Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Seehus v. Bor-Son Constr., Inc., d 144, 147 (Minn. 2010).
State of Minnesota, Respondent/Cross-Appellant v. Brian Keith Schnagl, a/k/a Brian Keith Schnagel, Appellant/Cross-Respondent. 859 N.W.2d 297 Minn. 2015
Chad Nelson, Below v. Troy Schlener, Carla Brown, Below, Minnesota Department of Human Services 859 N.W.2d 288 Minn. 2015
Chad Nelson, Below v. Troy Schlener, Carla Brown, Below, Minnesota Department of Human Services 859 N.W.2d 288 Minn. 2015
Seehus v. Bor-Son Constr., Inc.
State of Minnesota, Respondent/Cross-Appellant v. Brian Keith Schnagl, a/k/a Brian Keith Schnagel, Appellant/Cross-Respondent. 859 N.W.2d 297 Minn. 2015
Put differently, subject matter jurisdiction refers to a court’s authority “ ‘to hear and determine a particular class of actions and the particular questions’ presented to the court for its decision.” Giersdorf v. A & M Constr., Inc., (quoting Robinette v. Price, 214 Minn. 521, 526, ); see also Seehus v. Bor-Son Constr., Inc.
Federated Retail Holdings, Inc. v. County of Ramsey 820 N.W.2d 553 Minn. 2012
Federated Retail Holdings, Inc. v. County of Ramsey 820 N.W.2d 553 Minn. 2012
Seehus v. Bor-Son Const., Inc.
County of Washington v. City of Oak Park Heights 818 N.W.2d 533 Minn. 2012
Williams v. Smith 820 N.W.2d 807 Minn. 2012
Williams v. Smith 820 N.W.2d 807 Minn. 2012
Seehus v. Bor-Son Constr., Inc.
County of Washington v. City of Oak Park Heights 818 N.W.2d 533 Minn. 2012
Seehus v. Bor-Son Const., Inc.
Christianson v. Henke 812 N.W.2d 190 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
Christianson v. Henke 812 N.W.2d 190 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
“Subject-matter jurisdiction is the court’s authority to hear the type of dispute at issue and to grant the type of relief sought.” Seehus v. Bor-Son Constr., Inc.
Martin v. Morrison Trucking, Inc. 803 N.W.2d 365 Minn. 2011
Martin v. Morrison Trucking, Inc. 803 N.W.2d 365 Minn. 2011
See, e.g., Seehus v. Bor-Son Constr., Inc.
Swenson v. Nickaboine 793 N.W.2d 738 Minn. 2011