Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Jackson ex rel. Sorenson v. Options Residential, Inc., 896 N.W.2d 549.

18 citing documents.

In the Matter of the Civil Commitment of: Peter Lonergan Minn. Ct. App. 2026
Sorenson v. Options Residential, Inc., 29 (stating that this court is “bound by precedent established in the supreme court’s opinions and our own published opinions”).
Followed Tanner Lynn v. BNSF Railway Company Minn. Ct. App. 2025
See Jackson v. Options Residential, Inc., (noting that we are bound by prior Minnesota Supreme Court decisions).
Andrew Crisman, et al v. Hillman Township, Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2022
Sorenson v. Options Residential, Inc.
James Zika v. Elder Care of Minnesota, Inc., et al., Naree Weaver Minn. Ct. App. 2022
Sorenson v. Options Residential, Inc., —a case cited by the district court that Zika contends actually supports his argument.
State of Minnesota v. James NMN William Minn. Ct. App. 2022
Sorenson v. Options Residential, Inc., (“[W]e are bound by precedent established in the supreme court’s opinions and our own published opinions.”).
State of Minnesota v. Trejuan Dominic Miller Minn. Ct. App. 2022
Sorenson v. Options Residential, Inc. , (“[W]e are bound by precedent established in the supreme court’s opinions and our own publis hed opinions.”).
State of Minnesota v. Curt Matthew Craven Minn. Ct. App. 2022
Sorenson v. Options Residential, Inc. , (“[W]e are bound by precedent established in the supreme court’s opinions and our own publis hed opinions.”).
Followed State of Minnesota v. Darren Ray Liimatainen Minn. Ct. App. 2021
Sorenson v. Options Residential, Inc., (stating “we are bound by precedent established in the supreme court’s 7 Liimatainen argues that, even if the dist rict court’s analysis was sufficient, the record does not support its de terminations.
Devon T. Hogan, et al v. William F. Brass Minn. Ct. App. 2021
Sorenson v. Options Residential, Inc.
Broadway Child Care Center, Inc., et al v. Minnesota Department of Human Services Minn. Ct. App. 2021
Sorenson v. Options Residential, Inc., (“[W]e are bound by precedent established in the supreme court’s opinions and our own published opinions.”).
N.H., and Rebecca Lucero, Commissioner of the Minnesota Department of Human Rights-intervenor v. Anoka-Hennepin School District No. 11 Minn. Ct. App. 2020
Sorenson v. Options Residential, Inc. , see also Skelly Oil Co., v. Comm’r of Taxation, (“As [the Supreme Court] said in Sinclair v. United States, 279 U.S. 749, 767, 49 S. Ct. 471, 477, 73 L.Ed.
Colleen Cole f/k/a Colleen Wallin v. Caliber Home Loans, Inc. Minn. Ct. App. 2020
2019); see also Jackson v. Options Residential, Inc., (holding that “we are 6 bound by precedent established in .
Followed In the Matter of: Tracy Toulouse Minn. Ct. App. 2019
See Jackson v. Options Residential , (holding that “ we are bound by precedent esta blished in .
Distinguished Deborah J. Palmer, surviving spouse and Trustee for the heirs of Gary J. Palmer v. Walker Jamar Company … Minn. Ct. App. 2019
As the district court noted, “[b]ecause Podvin is binding, published precedent, any abrogati on of the [appellate] court’s express and unambiguous holding based upon an unpublished decision is inappropriate and obviously constitutes reversible error.” And we, like the district court, are bound b y “ o u r o w n p u b l i s h e d opinions.” Jackson v. Options Residential, Inc.
State of Minnesota v. Nicholas Gerald Keller Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Sorenson v. Options 7 Residential, Inc., (“[W]e are bound by precedent established in the supreme court’s opinions and our own published opinions.”); State ex rel.
A17-2081, A18-0015 John Doe 125 (A17-2078), John Doe 126, et al. (A17-2081), John Doe 123, et al. (A18-0015) … Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Sorenson v. Options Residential, Inc., (“[W]e are bound by precedent establish ed in the supreme court’s opinions and our own published opinions.”).
Followed Cindy Ly v. North Memorial Medical Center Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Sorenson v. Options Residential , Inc.
Followed Krista Friese v. American Family Mutual Insurance Company Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Sorenson v. Options Residential, Inc.