Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Valspar Corp. v. Lukken Color Corp., 495 N.W.2d 408.

91 citing documents.

Patterson v. Wu Family Corp. 608 N.W.2d 863 Minn. 2000
Viking Engineering & Development, Inc. v. R.S.B. Enterprises, Inc. 608 N.W.2d 166 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
Viking Engineering & Development, Inc. v. R.S.B. Enterprises, Inc. 608 N.W.2d 166 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
The long-arm statute is designed to “extend the personal jurisdiction of Minnesota courts as far as the Due Process Clause of the federal constitution allows.”
KSTP-FM, LLC v. Specialized Communications, Inc. 602 N.W.2d 919 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
KSTP-FM, LLC v. Specialized Communications, Inc. 602 N.W.2d 919 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
Davis v. Minnesota Mining & Manufacturing Co. 590 N.W.2d 159 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
Davis v. Minnesota Mining & Manufacturing Co. 590 N.W.2d 159 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
Hughs on Behalf of Praul v. Cole 572 N.W.2d 747 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
Hughs on Behalf of Praul v. Cole 572 N.W.2d 747 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
STATE BY HUMPHREY v. Granite Gate Resorts 568 N.W.2d 715 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
STATE BY HUMPHREY v. Granite Gate Resorts 568 N.W.2d 715 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
In close cases, “doubts should be resolved in favor of retention of jurisdiction.” -12 (Minn.1992).
Cefis v. Cefis 555 N.W.2d 333 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
Cefis v. Cefis 555 N.W.2d 333 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
(holding long-arm statute is satisfied when federal due process requirements are met).
Behm v. John Nuveen & Co., Inc. 555 N.W.2d 301 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
Behm v. John Nuveen & Co., Inc. 555 N.W.2d 301 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
V.H. v. Estate of Birnbaum 543 N.W.2d 649 Minn. 1996
V.H. v. Estate of Birnbaum 543 N.W.2d 649 Minn. 1996
-12 (Minn.1992) (stating that the district court does not have discretion in exercise of personal jurisdiction); Stanek v. A.P.
Jensen v. RLK & CO. 534 N.W.2d 719 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
Jenson v. R.L.K. & Co. 534 N.W.2d 719 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
Jenson v. R.L.K. & Co. 534 N.W.2d 719 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
Jensen v. RLK & CO. 534 N.W.2d 719 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
Domtar, Inc. v. Niagara Fire Insurance Co. 533 N.W.2d 25 Minn. 1995
Domtar, Inc. v. Niagara Fire Insurance Co. 533 N.W.2d 25 Minn. 1995
VH v. Estate of Birnbaum 529 N.W.2d 462 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
VH v. Estate of Birnbaum 529 N.W.2d 462 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
Welsh v. Takekawa Iron Works Co., Ltd. 529 N.W.2d 471 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
Welsh v. Takekawa Iron Works Co., Ltd. 529 N.W.2d 471 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
Oakridge Holdings, Inc. v. Brukman 528 N.W.2d 274 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
Oakridge Holdings, Inc. v. Brukman 528 N.W.2d 274 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
TRWL Financial Establishment v. Select International, Inc. 527 N.W.2d 573 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
TRWL Financial Establishment v. Select International, Inc. 527 N.W.2d 573 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
H.A.W. v. Manuel 524 N.W.2d 10 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
H.A.W. v. Manuel 524 N.W.2d 10 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
Domtar, Inc. v. Niagara Fire Insurance Co. 518 N.W.2d 58 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
Domtar, Inc. v. Niagara Fire Insurance Co. 518 N.W.2d 58 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
Wicken v. Morris 510 N.W.2d 246 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
Wicken v. Morris 510 N.W.2d 246 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
Doe 1-22 v. Roman Catholic Bishop of Fall River 509 N.W.2d 598 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
Doe 1-22 v. Roman Catholic Bishop of Fall River 509 N.W.2d 598 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
-12 (Minn.1992) (exercise of personal jurisdiction not in the district court’s discretion).
Trident Enterprises International, Inc. v. Kemp & George, Inc. 502 N.W.2d 411 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
Trident Enterprises International, Inc. v. Kemp & George, Inc. 502 N.W.2d 411 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
In close cases, “doubts should be resolved in favor of retention of jurisdiction.” -12 (Minn.1992).

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by