Cited by
Opinions in Minnesota that cite Miller v. Soo Line R.R. Co., 925 N.W.2d 642.
-
Doris Evanson, et al., Respondents,
Minn. Ct. App. 2025
Co., (quotation omitted), must be “specifically stated” in pleadings, Minn. R. Civ.
-
Deanna M. Kortan, Appellant,
Minn. Ct. App. 2025
Co., (quotation omitted).
-
United Christian Fellowship Church, et al., Appellants,
Minn. Ct. App. 2025
“Special damages are those which are the natural but not the necessary and inevitable result of the wrongful act, ” are attributable to “the special character, condition, or circumstances” of the injured party, and can be assigned “an exact dollar amount.” (quotations omitted).
-
Brian’s Lawn & Landscaping, Inc. dba Rock Hard Landscape Supply, Respondent,
Minn. Ct. App. 2025
Co., (quotations omitted).
-
Robert Sanden, et al., Respondents,
Minn. Ct. App. 2024
4 provides that appellate courts “may review any other matter as the interest of justice may require.” We may consider an issue not raised below “when the issue is plainly decisive of the entire controversy on its merits, is raised prominently in the briefing, does not prejudice either party, or involves a question of law not dependent on new or controverted facts.” (quotations omitted).
-
American Academy of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Inc., et al., Respondents,
Minn. Ct. App. 2024
Appellate courts may, however, “decide an issue not presented to or considered by the trial court when the issue is plainly decisive of the entire controversy on its merits, is raised prominently in the briefing, does not prejudice either party, or involves a question of law not dependent on new or controverted facts.” (quotations omitted); see also Minn. R. Civ.
- In the Matter of the Welfare of the Children of: L. K. and A. S., Parents 9 N.W.3d 174 Minn. Ct. App. 2024
-
In the Matter of the Welfare of the Children of: L. K. and A. S., Parents
9 N.W.3d 174
Minn. Ct. App. 2024
Co., (quotation omitted).
- In the Matter of the Welfare of the Children of: M. M. M., Parent Minn. Ct. App. 2024
- In the Matter of the Welfare of the Children of: M. M. M., Parent Minn. Ct. App. 2024
-
Cheryl Orcutt, Respondent,
Minn. Ct. App. 2022
Co., d 642, 652 (Minn. App. 2019).
-
Cody Lee Elven, Respondent,
Minn. Ct. App. 2021
Co., (Minn. 1 As seen throughout the re st of this opinion, our casel aw refers to immunity for discretionary “duties” and “acts.” This inconsistent terminology risks confusing the focus of our analysis.
-
Zane Vanschaick, Respondent,
Minn. Ct. App. 2021
Co., (quotation omitted).
- Eric John Blehr, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
- Ben Tahja, et al., Respondents, Minn. Ct. App. 2020