Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Mahowald v. Minnesota Gas Co., 344 N.W.2d 856.

87 citing documents.

Lori Elaine Christensen v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2026
In re the Marriage of: David Ray Honeman v. Carol Lynn Honeman Minn. Ct. App. 2026
(noting that, although decisions from courts of other states are not binding, they may be persuasive).
State of Minnesota v. Daniel Martez Walker Minn. Ct. App. 2026
Distinguished State of Minnesota v. Daniel Martez Walker Minn. Ct. App. 2026
(noting that although decisions from courts of other states are not binding, they may be persuasive).
JHP 2309 Lyndale, LLC v. Icon Homes LLC, Paragon Restoration, LLC, Installed Building Solutions II, LLC, Rigid Building … Minn. Ct. App. 2025
Jaclyn Roos, Carol Naumann v. HealthPartners, Inc., et al., Richard Mahr, et al Minn. Ct. App. 2025
See Citizens for a (recognizing that we are “bound by decision[s] of the Minnesota Supreme Court and the United States Supreme Court,” but not “by any other federal courts’ opinion[s]” though such “opinions are persuasive and should be afforded due deference”); (noting that although decisions from courts of other states are not binding, they may be persuasive).
Franke E Carpenter, III, et al v. Michael Carpenter, et al Minn. Ct. App. 2025
See Citizens for a (recognizing we are “bound by decision[s] of the Minnesota Supreme Court and the United States Supreme Court,” but not “by any other federal courts’ opinion[s]” though such opinions “are persuasive and should be afforded due deference”); (noting that although decisions from courts of other states are not binding, they may be persuasive).
Jacob Becker, et al v. Mark A. Steinhauser, et al Minn. Ct. App. 2025
Die Casting, LLC, (stating that “[a] federal court ’s interpretation of Minnesota law is not binding on this court”); (indicating that c ases from other states are not binding but may have persuasive value).
Peter K Butler v. Shari Moore, et al Minn. Ct. App. 2024
Peter K Butler v. Shari Moore, et al Minn. Ct. App. 2024
Decisions from other jurisdictions regarding this issue are not binding authority, so we apply governing Minnesota law.
State of Minnesota v. Marvel Galvaston Williams Minn. Ct. App. 2024
Criticized State of Minnesota v. Marvel Galvaston Williams Minn. Ct. App. 2024
(noting that cases from other jurisdictions are not binding).
EDF-RE US Development, LLC v. RES America Construction, Inc. Minn. Ct. App. 2024
EDF-RE US Development, LLC v. RES America Construction, Inc. Minn. Ct. App. 2024
CBS MN Properties, LLC v. County of Hennepin Minn. Ct. App. 2024
CBS MN Properties, LLC v. County of Hennepin Minn. Ct. App. 2024
4 (explaining that decisions from foreign jurisdictions are not binding authority).
Kristie Kollmann, et al v. Joseph M. Garding, et al Minn. Ct. App. 2023
3 (2022) (recognizing that unpublished decisions are not precedential); (noting that cases from other j urisdictions are not binding).
In re: Ursula E. Nelson Trust under Agreement dated 3/21/2014, as Amended Minn. Ct. App. 2023
(recognizing that cases from other jurisdictions are not binding).
Anoka County, Anoka, Minnesota v. Law Enforcement Labor Services, Inc., Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, Bureau of Mediation Services Minn. Ct. App. 2023
(noting that cases from other jurisdictions are not binding).
Charles A. Laliberte v. Dollar Tree, Inc., et al Minn. Ct. App. 2023
David William Reynolds v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2021
Jomari E. Alexander, Sr. v. Paul Strong, et al Minn. Ct. App. 2021
See Citizens for a (“ This court is bound by decision of the Minnesota Supreme Court and the United States Supreme Court.”); see also Mahowald v. Minn. Gas Co. , (considering foreign caselaw for persuasive value but not as binding authority).
State of Minnesota v. Emily Maye Namyst Minn. Ct. App. 2021
See Mahowald v. Minn. Gas Co. , (M inn.
Maine Heights LLC v. Mohammed Hayat, John Doe, et al Minn. Ct. App. 2020
Minneapolis Grand, Mahowald v. Minn. Gas Co.
In re the marriage of: Aaron Peterson v. Brandi Peterson Minn. Ct. App. 2020
(concluding that foreign cases are not binding precedent but may have persuasive value).
Carnea Roberson v. STI International, Bill’s Gun Shop Minn. Ct. App. 2020
Town of West Lakeland v. Karl E. Auleciems, Susanne M. Auleciems, Ethan Auleciems, et al Minn. Ct. App. 2020
See Mahowald v. Minn. Gas Co. , (recognizing that foreign cases are not binding authority but may retain persuasive value).
Michelle Young, et al v. Kenneth Maciora Minn. Ct. App. 2020
(stating that decisions from other jurisdictions are not binding on Minnesota courts).
Francis J. Schumacher v. KMLE, INC., et al Minn. Ct. App. 2020
(recognizing that foreign cases are not binding precedent but may have persuasive value).
State of Minnesota v. Meng Vang Minn. Ct. App. 2019
See Mahowald v. Minn. Gas Co. , (stating that foreign authority is not binding, but may be persuasive).
Johnathan Bernard Edwards v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2019
See Johnson v. Soo Line R. Co. , n.7 (Minn. 1990) (stating that federal cases are “helpful and instructive but not necessarily controlling”); (stating that decisions from other states “are no t binding on us as authority”).
Gamma Lending Omega, LLC v. Talon First Trust, LLC, et al., Thomas Grace Construction, Inc. Minn. Ct. App. 2019
(concluding that foreign cases are not binding precedent but may have persuasive value).
William J. Benzick, et al v. Palm Properties LLC, Michael N. Palm Minn. Ct. App. 2019
(indicating that foreign caselaw is not binding precedent).
State of Minnesota, by its Attorney General, Lori Swanson, et al v. Volkswagen Aktiengesellschaft d/b/a Volkswagen Group and/or … Minn. Ct. App. 2018
(stating that caselaw from other states may provide “guidance when our own jurisprudence is undefined”); cf. Mahowald v. Minn. Gas Co ., (recognizing that decisions from foreign jurisdictions are not binding but may be persuasive authority).
In re 911 N.W.2d 821 Minn. 2018
In re 911 N.W.2d 821 Minn. 2018
8 See Mahowald v. Minn. Gas Co. , , 861 (Minn. 1984) (explaining that although decisions from other states are "not binding" on Minnesota courts "as authority," they are nevertheless "persuasive").
State v. Lopez-Ramos 913 N.W.2d 695 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State v. Lopez-Ramos 913 N.W.2d 695 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Mahowald v. Minn. Gas Co. , , 861 (Minn. 1984).
State v. Edstrom 901 N.W.2d 455 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State v. Edstrom 901 N.W.2d 455 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
See Mahowald v. Minn. Gas *463 Co., (stating that decisions from foreign jurisdictions are not binding but may be persuasive authority).
DeWitt v. London Road Rental Center, Inc. 899 N.W.2d 883 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Phone Recovery Services, LLC v. Qwest Corp. 901 N.W.2d 185 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
DeWitt v. London Road Rental Center, Inc. 899 N.W.2d 883 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
The Minnesota Supreme Court has not expressly defined the “exclusive control” element but has cautioned that “control [must be] seen as a flexible term.” (citing W. Prosser, Law of Torts § 39, at 218-21 (4th ed. 1971)).
Phone Recovery Services, LLC v. Qwest Corp. 901 N.W.2d 185 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Hearing Associates, Inc. v. Dr. Sara Downs, et al Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Mahowald v. Minn. Gas Co.
Vermillion State Bank v. State ex rel. Department of Transportation 895 N.W.2d 269 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Magnolia 8 Properties, LLC v. City of Maple Plain 893 N.W.2d 658 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Vermillion State Bank v. State ex rel. Department of Transportation 895 N.W.2d 269 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
(stating that decisions from other jurisdictions are not binding).
Magnolia 8 Properties, LLC v. City of Maple Plain 893 N.W.2d 658 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Quigley v. Village of Hibbing, 268 Minn. 541 , Bridgeman-Russell Co. v. City of Duluth, 158 Minn. 509 , 197 N.W.
State of Minnesota v. Justin Dillard Thomas 890 N.W.2d 413 Minn. Ct. App. 2017