Cited by

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

17 citing documents.

Followed Tanner Lynn, Respondent, 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., Respondents, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
Sorenson v. Options Residential, Inc.
James Zika, Appellant, 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, Respondent, 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, Respondent, 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, Respondent, 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, Respondent, 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., Appellants, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
Sorenson v. Options Residential, Inc.
Broadway Child Care Center, Inc., et al., Appellants, 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., Respondent, 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, Appellant, 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 A19-0155 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, Appellant, 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.
, A17-2080, A17-2081, 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, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Sorenson v. Options Residential , Inc.
Followed Krista Friese, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Sorenson v. Options Residential, Inc.