Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite In re Medtronic, Inc. Shareholder Litigation, 900 N.W.2d 401.

13 citing documents.

Cyrenus Rubald v. Rubald Properties, LLC, Quintin Rubald, III, et al Minn. Ct. App. 2025
Thomas Noree v. Philip Wong LLC, et al Minn. Ct. App. 2025
at 105 (emphasis added); see also In re Medtronic S’holder Litig., (clarifying the distinction between direct and derivative claims and explaining that a direct claim “alleges an injury to the shareholder rather than an injury to the corporation[,]” while a derivative claim alleges an injury to the corporation and is brought by a shareholder on behalf of the cor
Serene E. Warren, as beneficiary of the 2011 Arizona NG Trust 102, 8008 Meadow Trust 102, 2011 Lafayette … Minn. Ct. App. 2025
“The determination of whether shareholder claims are direct or derivative presents a question of law subject to de novo review.” In re Medtronic, Inc. S’holder Litig.
Bren Road LLC v. Talon OP, LP, et al. (A23-0248) (A23-0268), Talon First Trust LLC, and Bren Road … Minn. Ct. App. 2024
12 should be excused as futile.” Minn. Stat. § 321.1004 (2022); see also In re Medtronic, Inc. S’holder Litig., (defining direct and derivative actions and summarizing comparable requirements for bringing derivative claim against corporation).
Susan Schneider v. Max Schmidt, et al., KMAX Paradise Pork, LLC, a Minnesota limited liability company Minn. Ct. App. 2023
“The determination of whether shareholder claims are direct or derivative presents a question of law subject to de novo review.” In re Medtronic, Inc. S’holder Litig., .
Anthony Novak v. Lorie Miller, et al Minn. Ct. App. 2023
1 “[W]hen shareholders are injured only indirectly, the action is derivative; when shareholders show an injury that is not shared with the corporation, the action is direct.” In re Medtronic, Inc. S’holder Litig., d 401, 409 (Minn. 2017).
William M. Ross v. Dianne’s Custom Candles, LLC, et al Minn. Ct. App. 2021
In re Medtronic, Inc. S’holder Litig.
Daniel Ashbach v. Warren Peterson, et al Minn. Ct. App. 2021
Dustin Ward, et al v. El Rancho Manana, Inc., et al Minn. Ct. App. 2020
In re Med tronic, Inc. S’holder Litig.
Kathryn Ward Blum, et al., Thomas Ward v. Molly Thompson, et al., Ward Family, Inc. Minn. Ct. App. 2020
In re Medtronic, Inc. S’holder Litig.
Minn. 2019
The Schools moved to strike the submission, relying on Minnesota Rules of Appellate Procedure 127 and 128.05 and In re Medtronic, Inc. Shareholder Litigation, d 401, 411 n.7 (Minn. 2017) (granting motion to strike supplemental authority because it went beyond the bounds of Minn. R. Civ.
Jean J. Vogt v. Arnold A. Juliar, et al., Sally Hanson Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Appellate courts “review de novo [a] district court’s decision on a motion to dismiss, considering only the facts alleged in the complaint, and accepting those facts as true .” In re Medtronic, Inc. S’holder Litig., (quotation omitted).
Jeff Jaglo v. Ellen Bach, et al., ABC Corporation, et al Minn. Ct. App. 2018
In re Medtronic, Inc. S’holder Litig.