Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Gavle v. Little Six, Inc., 555 N.W.2d 284.

31 citing documents.

In the Matter of the Welfare of: J.A.D., Child (A24-0317), State of Minnesota v. Patrick Junior Jordan, ... Minn. Ct. App. 2024
In the Matter of the Welfare of: J.A.D., Child (A24-0317), State of Minnesota v. Patrick Junior Jordan, ... Minn. Ct. App. 2024
In Public Law 280, Congress empowered certain states to exercise criminal jurisdiction over “matters occurring within Indian country[.]” Gavle v. Little Six, Inc., (citing 18 U.S.C.
Randy Hook, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
” Gavle v. Little Six, Inc., (quotation omitted).
Margaret Campbell, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
“[A]bsent a grant of federal authority, state courts have no jurisdicti on over Indians, Indian tribes , or other Indian entities.” Gavle v. Little Six, Inc.
Hwal'bay Ba J Enterprises Inc v. Hon. jantzen/fox Ariz. 2020
In re the Matter of the Civil Commitment of: Matthew David Feeney. Minn. Ct. App. 2019
See Gavle v. Little Six, Inc.
Levine v. Bayview Loan Servicing, LLC 926 N.W.2d 49 Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Levine v. Bayview Loan Servicing, LLC 926 N.W.2d 49 Minn. Ct. App. 2019
D. Abstention Respondent also argues that the district court could have properly declined to exercise jurisdiction under the abstention doctrine (and related comity principles) in accordance with Gavle v. Little Six, Inc. , , 290 (Minn. 1996).
Maria Vlachou-Hahn, et al., Plaintiffs, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
The first-filed rule is a not truly a rule at all, but a principle, ‘“a blend of courtesy and expediency.”’ Gavle v. Little Six, Inc. , (quoting Medtronic Inc. v. Catalyst Research , 518 F. Supp. 946, 9 55, (D. Minn. 1981), aff’d, 664 F.2d 660 (8th Cir. 1981)).
In the Matter of the Civil COMMITMENT OF Kenneth Donald HAND 878 N.W.2d 503 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
In the Matter of the Civil COMMITMENT OF Kenneth Donald HAND 878 N.W.2d 503 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
comity between courts will resolve instances where two actions between 4 the same parties, on the same subject, and to test the same rights, are brought in different courts having concurrent jurisdiction.” Gavle v. Little Six, Inc., (quotation omitted).
LaVonne Pfeil, Individually and as Trustee for Heirs of Henry Pfeil v. St. Matthews Evangelical Lutheran Church of … 877 N.W.2d 528 Minn. 2016
LaVonne Pfeil, Individually and as Trustee for Heirs of Henry Pfeil v. St. Matthews Evangelical Lutheran Church of … 877 N.W.2d 528 Minn. 2016
See Gavle v. Little Six, Inc., (discussing abstention in the context of a suit involving tortious acts, some of which were committed on tribal land).
State of Minnesota v. Meng Yang Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Meng Yang Minn. Ct. App. 2014
-96 (Minn. 1996).5 On the limited record before us, we cannot say that the district court clearly erred when it found that the security guards did not take direction from law enforcement, which we broadly infer to mean the Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux Community tribal government and local law enforcement
In re the Welfare of the Child of R.S. 793 N.W.2d 752 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
In re the Welfare of the Child of R.S. 793 N.W.2d 752 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
"Concurrent jurisdiction describes a situation where two or more tribunals are authorized to hear and dispose of a matter.” Gavle v. Little Six, Inc.
Oberloh v. Johnson 768 N.W.2d 373 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
Oberloh v. Johnson 768 N.W.2d 373 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
“Indian tribes enjoy immunity because they are sovereigns predating the Constitution, and because immunity is thought necessary to promote federal policies of tribal self-determination, economic development, and cultural autonomy.” Gavle v. Little Six, Inc., *376 (quotation omitted).
State v. Manypenny 682 N.W.2d 143 Minn. 2004
State v. Manypenny 682 N.W.2d 143 Minn. 2004
(citing Gavle v. Little Six, Inc., ).
Medtronic, Inc. v. Advanced Bionics Corp. 630 N.W.2d 438 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
Medtronic, Inc. v. Advanced Bionics Corp. 630 N.W.2d 438 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
The first-filed rule is not truly a rule at all, but a principle, a “blend of courtesy and expediency.” Gavle v. Little Six, Inc., (quotation omitted).
Lemke Ex Rel. Teta v. Brooks 614 N.W.2d 242 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
Lemke Ex Rel. Teta v. Brooks 614 N.W.2d 242 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
“[A]bsent a grant of federal authority, state courts have no jurisdiction over Indians, Indian tribes or other Indian entities.” Gavle v. Little Six, Inc., (citations omitted), cert.
State v. Stone 572 N.W.2d 725 Minn. 1997
State v. Stone 572 N.W.2d 725 Minn. 1997
Gavie v. Little Six, Inc.
Granite Valley Hotel Ltd. Partnership v. Jackpot Junction Bingo & Casino 559 N.W.2d 135 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
Granite Valley Hotel Ltd. Partnership v. Jackpot Junction Bingo & Casino 559 N.W.2d 135 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
299 (1903), Cabazon, 783 F.2d 900 , Gavie v. Little Six, Inc., etc. They are mostly concerned with getting through the day, getting enough to eat, and having a warm place to sleep.
Cohen v. Little Six, Inc. 561 N.W.2d 889 Minn. 1997
Cohen v. Little Six, Inc. 561 N.W.2d 889 Minn. 1997
See Gavie v. Little Six, Inc.