Cited by

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

86 citing documents.

In re the Marriage of: 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, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
Jaclyn Roos, Appellant, 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., Respondents, 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., Appellants, 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 Minn. Ct. App. 2024
Peter K Butler v. Shari Moore 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., Respondents, 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, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
(noting that cases from other jurisdictions are not binding).
Charles A. Laliberte, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
David William Reynolds, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
Jomari E. Alexander, Sr., Appellant, 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, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
See Mahowald v. Minn. Gas Co. , (M inn.
Maine Heights LLC, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
Minneapolis Grand, Mahowald v. Minn. Gas Co.
In re the marriage of: Minn. Ct. App. 2020
(concluding that foreign cases are not binding precedent but may have persuasive value).
Carnea Roberson, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
Town of West Lakeland, Respondent, 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., Respondents, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
(stating that decisions from other jurisdictions are not binding on Minnesota courts).
Francis J. Schumacher, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
(recognizing that foreign cases are not binding precedent but may have persuasive value).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
See Mahowald v. Minn. Gas Co. , (stating that foreign authority is not binding, but may be persuasive).
Johnathan Bernard Edwards, petitioner, Appellant, 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, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
(concluding that foreign cases are not binding precedent but may have persuasive value).
William J. Benzick, et al., Respondents, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
(indicating that foreign caselaw is not binding precedent).
State of Minnesota, by its Attorney General, Lori Swanson, et al., Respondents, 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., Respondent, 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
State of Minnesota v. Justin Dillard Thomas 890 N.W.2d 413 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
7 (acknowledging that foreign authorities can be persuasive but are not binding).