Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite McCullough and Sons, Inc. v. City of Vadnais Heights, A14-1992, 883 N.W.2d 580.

63 citing documents.

Brian MacDonald, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
6 As the Minnesota Supreme Court “ha[s] long held, service of process is the means by which a court obtains personal jurisdiction over a defendant.” McCullough & Sons, Inc. v. City of Vadnais Heights
Anita J. Howard v. Shelly R. Svoboda, M.D. 890 N.W.2d 111 Minn. 2017
Anita J. Howard v. Shelly R. Svoboda, M.D. 890 N.W.2d 111 Minn. 2017
1203 , 131 L.Ed.2d 60 (1995) (vacating the judgment of the court of appeals for lack of appellate jurisdiction); McCullough & Sons, (vacating the court of appeals’ decision for lack of appellate jurisdiction).
James Ariola, as next of kin of, and trustee for, the Estate of Jack Ariola Erenberg, his son, … 889 N.W.2d 340 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
James Ariola, as next of kin of, and trustee for, the Estate of Jack Ariola Erenberg, his son, … 889 N.W.2d 340 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Stand Up Multipositional Advantage MRI, P.A. v. American Family Insurance Company, a Wisconsin corporation, Michael Schultz, Ilya Knyazev, … 889 N.W.2d 543 Minn. 2017
Stand Up Multipositional Advantage MRI, P.A. v. American Family Insurance Company, a Wisconsin corporation, Michael Schultz, Ilya Knyazev, … 889 N.W.2d 543 Minn. 2017
In the Matter of HIBBING TACONITE MINE AND STOCKPILE PROGRESSION and Williams Creek Project Specific Wetland Mitigation 888 N.W.2d 336 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
In the Matter of the Welfare of the Children of: C. L. C., D. L. F., III, D. … Minn. Ct. App. 2016
In the Matter of HIBBING TACONITE MINE AND STOCKPILE PROGRESSION and Williams Creek Project Specific Wetland Mitigation 888 N.W.2d 336 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
An order, decision, or judgment is “final,” for purposes of immediate appealability, if it “finally determine[s] some positive legal right belonging to the [would-be appellant].” McCullough & Sons, 10 (quotation omitted).
In the Matter of the Welfare of the Children of: C. L. C., D. L. F., III, D. … Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Subject-matter jurisdiction refers to the court’s power “to hear and determine a particular class of actions and the particular questions presented.” McCullough & Sons, -85 (Minn. 2016) (quotation omitted).
Gary Otremba, Heidi L. Moegerle v. City of East Bethel Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Gary Otremba, Heidi L. Moegerle v. City of East Bethel Minn. Ct. App. 2016
The Minnesota Supreme Court has discouraged the inexact use of the term “jurisdiction.” See, e.g., McCullough & Sons, 590 & n.3 (Minn. 2016) (“Jurisdiction refers to a court’s power to hear and decide disputes.” (internal quotations omitted)); & n.6 (Minn. 2007) (distinguishing between “non-jurisdictional procedural rules” and subject-matter jurisdiction, which relates to