Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Rehn v. Fischley, 557 N.W.2d 328.

94 citing documents.

In Re the Welfare of the Children of R.M.B. 735 N.W.2d 348 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
(reviewing district court’s decision that “good cause” existed to deviate from ICWA’s adoptive-placement preferences by determining whether district court’s factual findings were clearly erroneous and whether district court improperly weigh
All Parks Alliance for Change v. Uniprop Manufactured Housing Communities Income Fund 732 N.W.2d 189 Minn. 2007
Mahoney & Hagberg v. Newgard 729 N.W.2d 302 Minn. 2007
Mahoney & Hagberg v. Newgard 729 N.W.2d 302 Minn. 2007
Mahoney & Hagberg v. Newgard 712 N.W.2d 215 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
Mahoney & Hagberg v. Newgard 712 N.W.2d 215 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
Brown v. City of Bloomington 706 N.W.2d 519 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
Brown v. City of Bloomington 706 N.W.2d 519 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
Hyatt v. Anoka Police Department 700 N.W.2d 502 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
Hyatt v. Anoka Police Department 700 N.W.2d 502 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
Minder v. Anoka County 677 N.W.2d 479 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
Minder v. Anoka County 677 N.W.2d 479 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
Sletten v. Ramsey County 675 N.W.2d 291 Minn. 2004
Sletten v. Ramsey County 675 N.W.2d 291 Minn. 2004
-33 (Minn.1997): The difference [between affirmative defenses and immunities] is more than mere semantics.
In Re the Estate of Savich 671 N.W.2d 746 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
In Re the Estate of Savich 671 N.W.2d 746 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
Posthumous Deed When reviewing mixed questions of law and fact, “we will correct erroneous applications of law, but accord the [district] court discretion in its ultimate conclusions and review such conclusions under an abuse of discretion standard.”
Langford Tool & Drill Co. v. Phenix Biocomposites, LLC 668 N.W.2d 438 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
Langford Tool & Drill Co. v. Phenix Biocomposites, LLC 668 N.W.2d 438 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
When reviewing mixed questions of law and fact, “we will correct erroneous applications of law, but accord the trial court discretion in its ultimate conclusions and review such conclusions under an abuse of discretion standard.”
In Re the Estate of Riggle 654 N.W.2d 710 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
In Re the Estate of Riggle 654 N.W.2d 710 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
Metge v. Central Neighborhood Improvement Ass'n 649 N.W.2d 488 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
Metge v. Central Neighborhood Improvement Ass'n 649 N.W.2d 488 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
(stating these requirements).
Porch v. General Motors Acceptance Corp. 642 N.W.2d 473 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
Porch v. General Motors Acceptance Corp. 642 N.W.2d 473 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
When reviewing mixed questions of law and fact, we correct “erroneous applications of law, but accord the [district] court discretion in its ultimate conclusions and review such conclusions under an abuse of discretion standard.” -34 (Minn.1997).
Koes v. Advanced Design, Inc. 636 N.W.2d 352 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
Koes v. Advanced Design, Inc. 636 N.W.2d 352 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
Shepherd of the Valley Lutheran Church of Hastings v. Hope Lutheran Church of Hastings 626 N.W.2d 436 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
Shepherd of the Valley Lutheran Church of Hastings v. Hope Lutheran Church of Hastings 626 N.W.2d 436 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
Bloss v. University of Minnesota Board of Regents 590 N.W.2d 661 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
Bloss v. University of Minnesota Board of Regents 590 N.W.2d 661 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
In re the Risk Level Determination of C.M. 578 N.W.2d 391 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
Matter of Cm 578 N.W.2d 391 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
Gerber v. Neveaux 578 N.W.2d 399 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
In re the Risk Level Determination of C.M. 578 N.W.2d 391 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
-33 (Minn.1997) (noting that immunities are meant to immunize the government against suit rather than merely against liability).
Gerber v. Neveaux 578 N.W.2d 399 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
Matter of Cm 578 N.W.2d 391 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
-33 (Minn.1997) (noting that immunities are meant to immunize the government against suit rather than merely against liability).
Angell v. Hennepin County 565 N.W.2d 475 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
Angell v. Hennepin County 565 N.W.2d 475 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
Fieno v. State 567 N.W.2d 739 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
Fieno v. State 567 N.W.2d 739 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
Gleason v. Metropolitan Council Transit Operations 563 N.W.2d 309 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
Gleason v. Metropolitan Council Transit Operations 563 N.W.2d 309 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
Davis v. Hennepin County 559 N.W.2d 117 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
Davis v. Hennepin County 559 N.W.2d 117 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
(determination of whether an immunity applies is matter of law best resolved at summary judgment).

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by