Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Giersdorf v. A & M Construction, Inc., 820 N.W.2d 16.

36 citing documents.

Wells Fargo Bank, NA, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2026
Giersdorf v. A & M Constr., Inc.
Kevin Christensen, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2026
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., (quotation omitted).
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
Giersdorf v. A&M Constr., Inc.
Bobby Lykins, by George Duranske, conservator, Respondent, vs. Anderson Contracting, Inc., and SFM Mutual Insurance Co.,... Minn. 2025
Bobby Lykins, by George Duranske, conservator, Respondent, vs. Anderson Contracting, Inc., and SFM Mutual Insurance Co.,... Minn. 2025
Giersdorf v. A & M Constr., Inc.
PPB Holdings, L.P., Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
Subject-matter jurisdiction is a court’s “statutory or constitutional power to adjudicate the case.” Giersdorf v. A & M Constr., Inc., (quoting Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env’t, 523 U.S. 83, 89 (1998)).
Joseph Rued v. Commissioner of Human Services Minn. 2024
Joseph Rued v. Commissioner of Human Services Minn. 2024
Giersdorf v. A&M Constr., Inc.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
5 jurisdiction is a court’s statutory or constitutional power to adjudicate the case.” Giersdorf v. A & M Constr., Inc. , (quotation omitted).
In re the Matter of Joseph Rued, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
The concept of 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 decisi on.” Giersdorf v. A & M Constr., Inc., ().
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
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., (quotation omitted).
In the Matter of the Welfare of the Child of: S. B. G., Parent. Minn. Ct. App. 2022
The concept of 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 decisi on.” Giersdorf v. A & M Constr., Inc., ().
Minn. 2021
Giersdorf v. A & M Constr., Inc.
A20-0639 Minn. Ct. App. 2021
The Rabbes’ challenge does not implicate the court’s subject-matter jurisdiction, which “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., (quotation omitted).
In re the Matter of: Minn. Ct. App. 2019
“Subject-matter jurisdiction refers to a court’ s statutory or constitutional po wer to adjudicate the case.” Giersdorf v. A & M Constr., Inc. , (quotation omitted).
Johnson v. State 916 N.W.2d 674 Minn. 2018
Johnson v. State 916 N.W.2d 674 Minn. 2018
See Giersdorf v. A & M Constr., Inc. , , 20 (Minn. 2012) (noting that subject-matter jurisdiction refers to a court's power to decide a particular case).
A17-0883 Minn. 2018
See Giersdorf v. A & M Constr., Inc., (noting that subject - matter jurisdiction refers to a court’s power to decide a particular case).
Scott Trebelhorn, d/b/a Trebelhorn & Associates, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Put differently, “we examine the real nature of the action to determine the authority and responsib ilities of a court with respect to a claim.” Giersdorf v. A & M Constr., Inc. , (quotation omitted).
Johnson v. City of Duluth 903 N.W.2d 1 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Johnson v. City of Duluth 903 N.W.2d 1 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
“Subject matter jurisdiction is á court’s ‘statutory or constitutional power to adjudicate the case.’ ” Giersdorf v. A & M Constr., Inc., (quoting Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env’t, 523 U.S. 83, 89 , 118 S.Ct.
In re Timothy Leslie, Dakota County Sheriff, State of Minnesota v. John David Emerson 889 N.W.2d 13 Minn. 2017
In re Timothy Leslie, Dakota County Sheriff, State of Minnesota v. John David Emerson 889 N.W.2d 13 Minn. 2017
Subject matter jurisdiction is a court’s “statutory or constitutional power to 3 adjudicate the case.” Giersdorf v. A & M Constr., Inc., (quoting Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env’t, 523 U.S. 83, 89 (1998)).
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 Robinette v. Price, 214 Minn. 521, 526, see also Giersdorf v. A & M Constr., Inc., (“Subject matter jurisdiction is a court’s ‘statutory or constitutional power to adjudicate the case.’ ” (quoting Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env’t, 523 U.S. 83, 89 (1998))).
Mark R. Zweber v. Credit River Township 882 N.W.2d 605 Minn. 2016
Mark R. Zweber v. Credit River Township 882 N.W.2d 605 Minn. 2016
Inc., (quoting Robinette v. Price, 214 Minn. 521, 526 , ).
Nicol Nagel, individually and ESY Investments, LLC, a California limited liability company v. Tracy A. Westen 865 N.W.2d 325 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Nicol Nagel, individually and ESY Investments, LLC, a California limited liability company v. Tracy A. Westen 865 N.W.2d 325 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
“Put differently, subject matter jurisdiction is a court’s ‘statutory or constitutional power to adjudicate the case.’” Giersdorf v. A & M Constr., Inc., (quoting Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env’t, 523 U.S. 83, 89, 118 S. Ct. 1003, 1010 (1998)).
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
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.
State v. Vang 847 N.W.2d 248 Minn. 2014
State v. Vang 847 N.W.2d 248 Minn. 2014
“Put differently, subject matter jurisdiction is a court’s ‘statutory or constitutional power to adjudicate the case.’ ” Giersdorf v. A & M Constr., Inc., (quoting Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env’t, 523 U.S. 83, 89 , 118 S.Ct.
Turner v. Commissioner of Revenue 840 N.W.2d 205 Minn. 2013
Turner v. Commissioner of Revenue 840 N.W.2d 205 Minn. 2013
5 (2012); Giersdorf v. A & M Constr., Inc., we have held that the “late filing of an appeal ...