Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Trident Enterprises International, Inc. v. Kemp & George, Inc., 502 N.W.2d 411.

21 citing documents.

Gopher Mats, LLC d/b/a Viking Mat Company, Cross-Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
Int’l, Inc. v. Kemp & George Inc., -16 (Minn. App. 1993) (concluding 14 that fewer than ten telephone, mail, and fax contacts that induced Minnesota company to enter into contract were enough to establish minimum contacts); Viking Eng’g & Dev., Inc. v. R.S.B.
Jennifer A. Hindermann, as executrix of the Estate of David K. Hindermann and as beneficiary of the Revocable … Minn. Ct. App. 2024
Int’l, Inc. v. Kemp & George, Inc., d 411, 415 (Minn. App. 1993).
Husky Construction, Inc., Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
Int’l, Inc. v. Kemp & George, Inc.
The Estate of Michael T. Conneran, Jr., Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
Int’l, Inc. v. Kemp & George, Inc.
William H. Davis, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
Int’l, 10 Inc. v. Kemp & George Inc., -16 (Minn. App. 1993) (concluding that fewer than ten telephone, mail, and fax contacts that induced Minnesota company to enter into contract were sufficient to establish minimum contacts); see also Rebecca Minkoff Apparel, LLC v. Rebecca Minkoff, LLC, 2018 WL 3014942, at *1-4 (Minn. App. June 18, 2018) (conc
Patterson Dental Supply, Inc. v. Theodore Vlamis Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Patterson Dental Supply, Inc. v. Theodore Vlamis Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Int’l, Inc. v. Kemp & George, Inc., (“[W]hen the cause of action arises out of the contacts, [even] a single transaction can be sufficient to establish personal jurisdiction over the defendant.”).
Newman-Lakka Cancer Foundation v. Christine E. Briggs Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Newman-Lakka Cancer Foundation v. Christine E. Briggs Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Int’l, Inc. v. Kemp & George, Inc., (holding that less than ten contacts is minimal and that where quantity is minimal, quality and nature of contacts may establish personal jurisdiction).
Volkman v. Hanover Investments, Inc. 843 N.W.2d 789 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Volkman v. Hanover Investments, Inc. 843 N.W.2d 789 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Int’l, Inc. v. Kemp & George, Inc., (viewing Minnesota’s interest in providing forum in light of other factors that favored exercising jurisdiction to determine that Minnesota’s interest in providing forum supported exercise of jurisdiction).
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
Int’l, Inc. v. Kemp & George, Inc., -16 (Minn.App.1993).
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
Int’l, Inc. v. Kemp & George, Inc.
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
Int’l, Inc. v. Kemp & George, Inc., see also Zippo Mfg.
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
Int’l v. Kemp & George, Inc., see Marquette, d at 295 (lack of physical presence in course of transaction accomplished solely by mail and phone is inconsequential).
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
Int'l Inc. v. Kemp & George, Inc., -16 (Minn.App.1993).

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by