DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

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

13 citing documents.

  • Cyrenus Rubald, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
  • Thomas Noree, Appellant, 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.
  • A23-0268 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, Appellant, 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, Respondent, 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, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
    In re Medtronic, Inc. S’holder Litig.
  • Daniel Ashbach, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
  • Dustin Ward, et al., Appellants, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
    In re Med tronic, Inc. S’holder Litig.
  • Kathryn Ward Blum, et al., Appellants, 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, Appellant, 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, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
    In re Medtronic, Inc. S’holder Litig.