Cited by
Opinions in Minnesota that cite Miller v. Soo Line R.R. Co., 925 N.W.2d 642.
-
In the Matter of the Welfare of the Child of: L. C. J., Parent, C. M. L., Parent
Minn. Ct. App. 2026
Co., (quotations omitted); see also Minn. R. Civ.
-
Doris Evanson, et al v. Heidi Bealka, et al., Donald Evanson, and Doris Evanson, et al., vs. Donald …
Minn. Ct. App. 2025
Co., (quotation omitted), must be “specifically stated” in pleadings, Minn. R. Civ.
-
Deanna M. Kortan v. St. Louis Park Hockey Boosters, also known as St. Louis Park Hockey Association
Minn. Ct. App. 2025
Co., (quotation omitted).
-
United Christian Fellowship Church, et al v. Spire Credit Union, Jennifer L. Urban, et al
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 v. Last Chance Ranch, Inc., et al
Minn. Ct. App. 2025
Co., (quotations omitted).
-
Robert Sanden, et al v. Jerame Tysdal, et al., Otter Tail Township
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 v. Zuobiao Yuan
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 v. Jon Crews, et al
Minn. Ct. App. 2022
Co., d 642, 652 (Minn. App. 2019).
-
Cody Lee Elven v. St. Louis County
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 v. Jacob Letourneau, et al
Minn. Ct. App. 2021
Co., (quotation omitted).
- Eric John Blehr v. Jacki Sue Anderson Minn. Ct. App. 2021
- Ben Tahja, et al v. Vanessa Autio, Daniel Autio, Autio Homes Minn. Ct. App. 2020