Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite In re Individual 35W Bridge Litigation, 806 N.W.2d 820.

48 citing documents.

Minnesota Duty Disabled Association (MNDDA), a Minnesota nonprofit corporation v. State of Minnesota Public Employees Retirement Association (PERA) Minn. Ct. App. 2026
In re Individual 35W Bridge Litig.
Jacquelyn Karre, et al v. City of Duluth, et al., Spirit Mountain Recreation Area Authority, Wiegand Sports GmbH Minn. Ct. App. 2026
35W Bridge Litig., aff’d, (litigating two distinct claims: one for common-law contribution and one for indemnity and contractual contribution and indemnity).6 Under Minnesota law, the supreme court has concluded that a contractual indemnity clause applies, even after a party that was not at fault settles with a plaintiff, when
Troy Kenneth Scheffler v. Rosemary R. Franzen, Joshua M Heintzeman, et al., Lowell A Smith Minn. Ct. App. 2026
In re Individual 35W Bridge Litig.
Joe Leko v. Laurence Edward Henderson Minn. Ct. App. 2026
657 (Minn. 2012); In re Individual 35W Bridge Lit.
In re Defense and Indemnification of Alexander Vladimir Brown Minn. Ct. App. 2025
In re Defense and Indemnification of Alexander Vladimir Brown Minn. Ct. App. 2025
We therefore turn to an analysis of the second element—whether Brown’s “interest has been interfered with to an extent that violates the Due Process Clause.” In re Individual 35W Bridge Litig.
State of Minnesota v. Brooks Ellery Kurr Minn. Ct. App. 2025
9 the legislature is empowered ”to enact retroactive legislation”), aff’d
Keith Allen Kiefer v. Isanti County, State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2025
In doing so, we consider “only those facts alleged in the complaint, accepting those facts as true and construing all reasonable inferences in 5 favor of the non- moving party.” In re Individual 35W Bridge Litig., -27 (Minn. 2011) (failure to state a claim); Brenny v. Bd.
Christopher Humphrey v. City of Minneapolis Civil Service Commission Minn. Ct. App. 2025
“[T]he due process protection provided under the Minnesota Constitution is identical to the due process guaranteed under the U.S. Constitution.” In re Individual 35W Bridge Litig.
Lorob Properties LLC, et al v. Robert Roedl Minn. Ct. App. 2025
P. 12.02(e).” In re Individual 35W Bridge Litig.
Bradley Lewis, et al v. Alpine Homes, Inc. Minn. Ct. App. 2023
See In re Individual 35W Bridge Litig., (explaining that if the text in a statute is clear, this court applies the statute’s plain meaning), aff’d
RSS Fridley, LLC, a Minnesota limited liability company, et al v. Northwestern Orthopaedic Surgeons Partnership, LLP, a Minnesota … Minn. Ct. App. 2022
State of Minnesota, Minn. 2021
(quoting In re Individual 35W Bridge Litig., ).
Minn. 2021
–33 (Minn. 2011) (concluding on a motion to dismiss that co mpensation statutes satisfied rational basis review).
Thomas Purmort v. Kaydee Lanahan Minn. Ct. App. 2021
In Re: The Matter of the Petition for Project No. 77, Clay County Ditch No. 51-Lateral No. 3, … Minn. Ct. App. 2019
See In re 35W Bridge Litig., -31 (Minn. 2011).
Michael Noel v. Lutheran Social Service of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2019
When determining whether a complaint sufficiently states a claim, courts consider “only those facts alleged in the complaint, accepting those facts as true and construing all reasonable inferences in favor of the non -moving party.” In re Individual 35W Bridge Litig., -27 (Minn. 2011).
Bruce Clark, et al., Minn. 2019
(stating that the party challenging the constitutionality of legislation bears the burden of showing unconstitutionality).
Minnesota Center for Environmental Advocacy, et al v. Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, Poly Met Mining, Inc. Minn. Ct. App. 2019
(explaining that proponent of due-process claim “has the burden of proving that the interest allegedly interfered with rises to the level of a constitutionally protected ‘liberty’ or ‘property’ interest, and that this interest has been interfered with to an extent that violates the Due Process C
Abdiaziz H. Hirsi v. ARCH Language Network, Inc. d/b/a ARCH Language, et al Minn. Ct. App. 2019
W hen considering the defense of failure to state a claim, courts consider “only [the] facts alleged in the complaint, accepting those facts as true and construing all reasonable inferences in favor of the non- moving party.” In re Individual 35W Bridge Litig., -27 (Minn. 2011).
Great N. Ins. Co. v. Honeywell Int'l, Inc. 911 N.W.2d 510 Minn. 2018
Great N. Ins. Co. v. Honeywell Int'l, Inc. 911 N.W.2d 510 Minn. 2018
831 (Minn. 2011) (quoting Weston v. McWilliams & Assoc.
Hall v. State 908 N.W.2d 345 Minn. 2018
Hall v. State 908 N.W.2d 345 Minn. 2018
829 (Minn. 2011) (citing Sartori v. Harnischfeger Corp. , , 453 (Minn. 1988) ).
Earthsoils, Inc. v. Jeffrey S. Ptacek, et al Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Kimberly-Clark Corporation & Subsidiaries, Relators/Cross-Respondents v. Commissioner of Revenue, Respondent/Cross-Appellant. 880 N.W.2d 844 Minn. 2016
Kimberly-Clark Corporation & Subsidiaries, Relators/Cross-Respondents v. Commissioner of Revenue, Respondent/Cross-Appellant. 880 N.W.2d 844 Minn. 2016
10 see In re Individual 35W Bridge Litig., -35 (Minn. 2011) (citing Energy Reserves Grp., Inc. v. Kan.
In the Matter of the Civil Commitment of: Kenneth Donald Hand 878 N.W.2d 503 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
In the Matter of the Civil Commitment of: Kenneth Donald Hand 878 N.W.2d 503 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
In re Individual 35W Bridge Litig.
Kristina Jean Powers v. Superintendent James Freihammer, in his official capacity, et al Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Kristina Jean Powers v. Superintendent James Freihammer, in his official capacity, et al Minn. Ct. App. 2016
But it is well settled that, when deciding a motion to dismiss, a district court may “consider matters outside the pleadings if the pleadings refer to or rely on the outside matters.” 2 In re Individual 35W Bridge Litig., aff’d
State of Minnesota v. Timothy Robert Turner 864 N.W.2d 204 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Timothy Robert Turner 864 N.W.2d 204 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
In re Individual 35W Bridge Litig., d 820, 829 (Minn. 2011).
State of Minnesota v. David Lamar Everett, and David Lamar Everett, vs. Commissioner of Public Safety Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. David Lamar Everett, and David Lamar Everett, vs. Commissioner of Public Safety Minn. Ct. App. 2014
In re Individual 35W Bridge Litigation
State of Minnesota v. Ronald James Chasingbear Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Ronald James Chasingbear Minn. Ct. App. 2014
See Reno v. Flores, 507 U.S. 18 292, 305, 113 S. Ct. 1439, 1448–49 (1993); In re Individual 35W Bridge Litigation
Rochester City Lines, Co. v. City of Rochester 846 N.W.2d 444 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Rochester City Lines, Co. v. City of Rochester 846 N.W.2d 444 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
(procedural); In re Individual 35W Bridge Litigation, (substantive).
In re Guardianship of Durand 845 N.W.2d 821 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
In re Guardianship of Durand 845 N.W.2d 821 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
In re Individual 35W Bridge Litig.
State v. Craig 826 N.W.2d 789 Minn. 2013
State v. Craig 826 N.W.2d 789 Minn. 2013
In re Individual 35W Bridge Litig.
Odunlade v. City of Minneapolis 823 N.W.2d 638 Minn. 2012
Brenny v. Board of Regents of the University of Minnesota 813 N.W.2d 417 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
Brenny v. Board of Regents of the University of Minnesota 813 N.W.2d 417 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
In re Individual 35W Bridge Litig., -27 (Minn.2011).
Schatz v. Interfaith Care Center 811 N.W.2d 643 Minn. 2012
Schatz v. Interfaith Care Center 811 N.W.2d 643 Minn. 2012
See In re Individual 35W Bridge Litigation, -31 (Minn.2011).