Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Schober v. Commissioner of Revenue, 853 N.W.2d 102.

39 citing documents.

Daniel Petsinger DBA Radio Link Internet v. City of Ellendale, a Minnesota Political Subdivision, and in ther Personal … Minn. Ct. App. 2026
Barnabas A. Yohannes v. Minnesota IT Services Minn. Ct. App. 2025
William O. Bradley v. For Life Home Development LLC Minn. Ct. App. 2025
“When these four requirements have been satisfied, res judicata bars claims regarding matters actually litigated and every matter that might have been litigated in the prior proceeding.” Schober v. Comm’r of Revenue
McLaughlin’s Detroit Lakes, LLC v. Franklin Outdoor Advertising Co. Minn. Ct. App. 2024
If res judicata applies, it bars not only claims for matters that were litigated but also those “that might have been litigated in the prior proceeding.” Schober v. Comm’r of Revenue
Credo Salon and Spa, Inc. v. Liberty Village I, LLC, et al Minn. Ct. App. 2022
Leave to amend, however, should not be granted when doing so “would result in prejudice to the other party.” Schober v. Comm’r of Revenue, d 102, 112-13 (Minn. 2013) ().
Community Finance Group, Inc. v. Main Street Otsego, LLC, LandCor Companies, Inc., Robert L. Fields, Patricia Fields, ABP, … Minn. Ct. App. 2020
tion of a prior lawsuit involving an earlier claim if “(1) litigation on a prior claim involved the same cause of action, (2) there was a judgment on the merits, (3) the claim involved the same parties or their privies, and (4) the p arty against whom res judicata is applied has had a full and fair opportunity to litigate the matter in the prior proceeding.”
Guardian Energy, LLC v. Cnty. of Waseca 927 N.W.2d 1 Minn. 2019
Guardian Energy, LLC v. Cnty. of Waseca 927 N.W.2d 1 Minn. 2019
" Schober v. Comm'r of Revenue , , 108 (Minn. 2013) (quoting Youngstown Mines Corp. v. Prout , 266 Minn. 450 , , 351 (1963) ).
Peter G. Noe v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2018
See Schober v. Comm’r of Revenue, see also Application of Hofstad, (“Where res judicata and collateral estoppel apply, amendment [of the complaint] is improper.”).
Rochester City Lines Co. v. City of Rochester, First Transit, Inc. Minn. Ct. App. 2018
“But leave to amend should not be granted when doing so would result in prejudice to the other party.” Schober v. Comm’r of Revenue , -13 (Minn. 2013) (quotation omitted).
Cruz-Guzman v. State 916 N.W.2d 1 Minn. 2018
Maria Olson, et al v. Christenson Law Office, PLLC, et al Minn. Ct. App. 2018
The district court’s 11 application of the doctrine of res judicata in this case to preclude appellants from litigating the same facts under a different legal theory comports with the “courts’ disfavor with multiple lawsuits for the same cause of action and wasteful litigation.” Schober v. Comm’r of Revenue
650 North Main Association v. Frauenshuh, Inc., Territorial Springs Riverview, LLC, et al., Kraus-Anderson Construction Company, Doe Affiliates … Minn. Ct. App. 2018
The doctrine of res judicata may preclude a party from relitigating a cause of action if, among other requirements, “there was a judgment on the merits” and “the party against whom res judicata is applied has had a full and fair opportunity to litigate the matter in the prior proceeding.”
Bert Lawrence Pexsa, et al v. Disabled American Veterans of Minnesota Foundation Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Jayson Dock, et al v. Waconia Landing Homeowners Association, Inc. Minn. Ct. App. 2017
The res judi cata doctrine “reflects courts’ disfavor with multiple lawsuits for the same cause of action and wasteful litigation.” Schober v. Comm’r of Revenue, (quotation omitted).
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 “should not be applied rigidly in contravention of public policy.” Schober v. Comm’r of Revenue
David Brian Pemrick v. Lori Ann Bucher, et al Minn. Ct. App. 2017
David Brian Pemrick v. Lori Ann Bucher, et al Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Answering this question involves an inquiry into whether “the same evidence will sustain both actions.” Schober v. Comm’r of Revenue
Daniel L. Berglund, Relator v. Commissioner of Revenue 877 N.W.2d 780 Minn. 2016
Daniel L. Berglund, Relator v. Commissioner of Revenue 877 N.W.2d 780 Minn. 2016
Cf. Schober v. Comm’r of Revenue, (establishing that an order is appealable if it is written and entered into the records of the Commissioner).
Robert Kagel v. Christian Brackey, et al., Kagel Acquisition Company, LLC Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Robert Kagel v. Christian Brackey, et al., Kagel Acquisition Company, LLC Minn. Ct. App. 2016
14 so requires.” “But leave to amend should not be granted when doing so would result in prejudice to the other party.” Schober v. Comm’r of Revenue, -13 (Minn. 2013) (quotation omitted).
Mike Malone v. Frances S. Bland, John Doe, et al Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Mike Malone v. Frances S. Bland, John Doe, et al Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Schober v. Comm’r of Revenue
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
Christina Wagner v. Mark Sowl Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Christina Wagner v. Mark Sowl Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Schober v. Comm’r of Revenue
In the Matter of the Petition of Prime Security Bank For a New Certificate of Title After Mortgage … Minn. Ct. App. 2015
In the Matter of the Petition of Prime Security Bank For a New Certificate of Title After Mortgage … Minn. Ct. App. 2015
at 840; see Schober v. Comm’r of Revenue, (stating that res judicata bars a party from bringing repetitive suits involving claims that were either litigated in a previous action or could have been raised in a previous action).
Ronald Hagle, et al v. The Bank of New York Mellon, as Trustee of the Benefit of CWMBS … Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Ronald Hagle, et al v. The Bank of New York Mellon, as Trustee of the Benefit of CWMBS … Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Randy L. Brandt, et al v. Wayne E. Lee, et al Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Randy L. Brandt, et al v. Wayne E. Lee, et al Minn. Ct. App. 2015
See Schober v. Comm’r of Revenue, –13 (Minn. 2013).
Haugen Nutrition & Equipment, LLC, et al v. United Prairie Bank of Mountain Lake Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Haugen Nutrition & Equipment, LLC, et al v. United Prairie Bank of Mountain Lake Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Schober v. Comm’r of Revenue, (stating that res judicata bars a party from bringing repetitive suits involving claims that were either litigated in a previous action or could have been raised in a previous action).
James Klapmeier v. Joseph Michael Ebel, et al Minn. Ct. App. 2014
James Klapmeier v. Joseph Michael Ebel, et al Minn. Ct. App. 2014
DECISION “The application of res judicata presents a question of law subject to de novo review.” Schober v. Comm’r of Revenue