Cited by

See Cargill, d at 352–53; (overruling a precedent in part because the overruled case did not “comport[] with the decisions of many other state supreme courts—most issued after [the overruled decision]” (emphasis added)).

In addition to being nonbinding, see Daniel v. City of Minneapolis , n.6 (Minn. 2019) (stating that a federal circuit court decision “do [es] not bind our court”), Basco is distinguishable because it merely holds that hearsay evidence must be accompanied by sufficient guarantees of reliability and probative value.

d 398, 405 (Minn. 2025) (review of a rule 12.02(e) motion to dismiss is de novo); see also Daniel v. City of Minneapolis , (“Subject-matter jurisdiction is a question of law that [appellate courts] review de novo.”).

–91 (Minn. 2021); –51 (Minn. 2019) (holding two statutes with exclusivity provisions could be harmonized, even when they concerned the same conduct, because they addressed different resulting injuries).

d 637, 644 (Minn. 2019) (“Subject-matter jurisdiction is a question of law that we review de novo.”).

If the injury is compensable under the WCA, then the WCA is the exclusive remedy and precludes “any” other liability “on account of such 11 injury.” Minn. Stat. § 176.031; (noting the exclusivity provision bars claims of personal injury to include mental impairment or physical injury which can be causally linked to the employment.).

In the absence of ambiguity, 1 “We are ‘extremely reluctant to overrule our precedent under principles of stare decisis and require a compelling reason’ before we will do so.” Kenneh v. Homeward Bound, Inc., (

Minnesota appellate courts are “extremely reluctant to overrule our precedent under principles of stare decisis and require a compelling reason before overruling a prior decision.” (quotation omitted); rev. denied (Minn. Mar.

Daniel v. City of Minneapolis

“Subject-matter jurisdiction is a question of law that we review de novo.”

“Subject -matter jurisdiction is a question of law that we review de novo.”

“Subject-matter jurisdiction is a question of law that we review de novo.” Daniel v. City of Minneapolis

“Subject-matter jurisdiction is a question of law that [appellate courts] review de novo.”

A party generally may bring claims under different statutes if the claims arise out of the same set of facts, “unless a statute provides that its remedy is exclusive.” (quotation omitted).

Daniel v. City of Minneapolis , (stating that subject -matter jurisdiction is reviewed de novo); Poppler v. Wright Hennepin Coop.

“Subj ect-matter jurisdiction is a question of law that we review de novo.”

Daniel v. City of Minneapolis , (quoting Cargill, Inc. v. Ace Am.

Daniel v. City of Minneapolis

Daniel v. City of Minneapoli s, .