Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Dent-Air, Inc. v. Beech Mountain Air Service, Inc., 332 N.W.2d 904.

151 citing documents.

A24-1652 Minn. Ct. App. 2025
When reviewing the nature and quality of the contacts, we attempt to “ascertain whether the nonresidents purposefully availed themselves of the benefits and protections of Minnesota law.” Dent-Air, Inc. v. Beech Mountain Air Serv., Inc., (quotation omitted).
Gopher Mats, LLC d/b/a Viking Mat Company, Cross-Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
“The first three factors are the primary factors, with the last two deserving lesser consideration.” Dent-Air, Inc. v. Beech Mountain Air Serv., Inc.
Jennifer A. Hindermann, as executrix of the Estate of David K. Hindermann and as beneficiary of the Revocable … Minn. Ct. App. 2024
“The first three factors are the primary factors, with the last two deserving lesser consider ation.” Dent-Air, Inc. v. Beech Mountain Air Serv., Inc.
Bruce A. Rasmussen & Associates, LLC, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
“The first three factors are the primary factors, with the last two deserving lesser consideration.” Dent-Air, Inc. v. Beech Mountain Air Serv., Inc.
In re the Marriage of: Michael Robert Jacobson, petitioner, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
Dent-Air, Inc. v. Beech Mountain Air Serv., Inc.
Husky Construction, Inc., Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
See Dent-Air, Inc. v. Beech Mountain Air Serv., Inc., (identifying the interest of the state in providing a forum and the convenience of the parties as factors that deserve “lesser consideration”).
Health Care Service Corporation, et al., Respondents, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
Dent-Air, Inc. v. Beech Mountain Air Serv., Inc.
The Estate of Michael T. Conneran, Jr., Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
The first three factors are the “primary factors,” with the last two “deserving lesser consideration.” Dent-Air, Inc. v. Beech Mountain Air Serv., Inc.
William H. Davis, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
Dent-Air, Inc. v. Beech Mountain Air Serv., Inc.
Michael Hosting, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
Appellants argue against considering these c ontacts because “Minnesota courts have routinely held that phone and mail contacts are insufficient to exercise personal jurisdiction over a foreign defendant.” See Dent-Air, Inc. v. Beec h Mountain Air Serv., Inc ., S.B.
Bandemer v. Ford Motor Co. 931 N.W.2d 744 Minn. 2019
Bandemer v. Ford Motor Co. 931 N.W.2d 744 Minn. 2019
648 F.3d 588 , 592 (8th Cir. 2011) ; Dent-Air, Inc. v. Beech Mountain Air Serv., Inc. , , 907 (Minn. 1983).
Rebecca Minkoff Apparel, LLC, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
TRWL, d at 577-78; see also Dent-Air, Inc. v. Beech Mountain Air Serv., Inc. , (recognizing “traditional” buyer-seller distinction but emphasizing that “only one due process standard, the requirement of minimum contacts, applies to all defendants” (quotation omitted)).
Droel, PLLC, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
The Supreme Court of Minnesota has “stated that whenever minimum contacts are present[,] jurisdiction should be exercised unless the court finds that Minnesota jurisdiction is improper on forum non conveniens grounds.” Dent-Air, Inc. v. Beech Mountain Air Serv., Inc.
Fair Isaac Corporation v. Michael Gordon, Callcredit Information Group Limited Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Fair Isaac Corporation v. Michael Gordon, Callcredit Information Group Limited Minn. Ct. App. 2016
(citing Dent–Air, Inc. v. Beech Mountain Air Serv., Inc., n.1 (Minn. 1983)); Hardrives, Inc. v. City of LaCrosse, 307 Minn. 290, 293
Michael P. Schaefer v. Archdiocese of St. Paul and Minneapolis, Roman Catholic Diocese of Orange Revocable Trust Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Michael P. Schaefer v. Archdiocese of St. Paul and Minneapolis, Roman Catholic Diocese of Orange Revocable Trust Minn. Ct. App. 2016
at 915- 16; see also Dent-Air, Inc. v. Beech Mountain Air Serv., Inc., (stating that “[i]n reviewing the nature and quality of the contacts, we are attempting to ascertain whether the nonresidents purposefully availed themselves of the benefits and protections of Minnesota law”) (quotation omitted)).
Patterson Dental Supply, Inc. v. Theodore Vlamis Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Patterson Dental Supply, Inc. v. Theodore Vlamis Minn. Ct. App. 2016
“The first three factors are the primary factors, with the last two deserving lesser consideration.” Dent-Air, Inc. v. Beech Mountain Air Serv., Inc.
Scott Rilley v. MoneyMutual, LLC 884 N.W.2d 321 Minn. 2016
Scott Rilley v. MoneyMutual, LLC 884 N.W.2d 321 Minn. 2016
Co. v. J. Uriach & CIA, S.A., 648 F.3d 588, 592 (8th Cir. 2011) (quoting Burger 9 King, 471 U.S. at 464); Dent-Air, Inc. v. Beech Mountain Air Serv., Inc., d 904, 907 (Minn. 1983).
Newman-Lakka Cancer Foundation v. Christine E. Briggs Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Newman-Lakka Cancer Foundation v. Christine E. Briggs Minn. Ct. App. 2016
“The first three factors are the primary factors, with the last two deserving lesser consideration.” Dent-Air, Inc. v. Beech Mountain Air Serv., Inc., 3 1.
Butler v. JLA Industrial Equipment, Inc. 845 N.W.2d 834 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Butler v. JLA Industrial Equipment, Inc. 845 N.W.2d 834 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
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
“The first three factors are the primary factors, with the last two deserving lesser consideration.” Dent-Air, Inc. v. Beech Mountain Air Serv., Inc.
Curtis v. Altria Group, Inc. 792 N.W.2d 836 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
Curtis v. Altria Group, Inc. 792 N.W.2d 836 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
Dent-Air, , 907 n. 1 (Minn.1983).
JL Schwieters Construction, Inc. v. Goldridge Construction, Inc. 788 N.W.2d 529 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
JL Schwieters Construction, Inc. v. Goldridge Construction, Inc. 788 N.W.2d 529 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
Dent-Air, Inc. v. Beech Mountain Air Serv., Inc., , 907 n. 1 (Minn.1983).
C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc. v. FLS Transportation, Inc. 772 N.W.2d 528 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc. v. FLS Transportation, Inc. 772 N.W.2d 528 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
Dent-Air, Inc. v. Beech Mountain Air Serv., Inc., , 907 n. 1 (Minn.1983).
Christian v. Birch 763 N.W.2d 50 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
Christian v. Birch 763 N.W.2d 50 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
Dent-Air, Inc. v. Beech Mountain Air Serv., Inc., , 907 n. 1 (Minn.1983).
Juelich v. Yamazaki Mazak Optonics Corp. 682 N.W.2d 565 Minn. 2004
Juelich v. Yamazaki Mazak Optonics Corp. 682 N.W.2d 565 Minn. 2004
Dent-Air, Inc. v. Beech Mountain Air Service, Inc., , 907 n. 1 (Minn.1983).
Marshall v. Inn on Madeline Island 610 N.W.2d 670 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
Marshall v. Inn on Madeline Island 610 N.W.2d 670 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
Denh-Air, Inc. v. Beech Mountain Air Serv., Inc.
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
“Mere inquiry by a prospective buyer or seller, without more, will not sustain jurisdiction.” Dent-Air, Inc. v. Beech Mountain Air Serv., Inc.
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
TRWL Financial, d at 576 (citing Dentt-Air, Inc. v. Beech Mountain Air Serv., Inc., ).
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
As a threshold matter, a prima fa-cie showing must be made that jurisdiction does not violate “traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.” Dent-Air, Inc. v. Beech Mountain Air Serv., Inc., -07 (Minn.1983) (quoting International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310, 316 , 66 S.Ct.
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
On review, when this court analyzes the nature and quality of contacts, it must determine “whether the nonresident ‘purposely availed’ himself of the benefits and protections of Minnesota law.” Mahoney, d at 118-19 (quoting Dent — Air, Inc. v. Beech Mountain Air Serv., Inc., ).
In Re Minnesota Asbestos Litigation 540 N.W.2d 896 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
In Re Minnesota Asbestos Litigation 540 N.W.2d 896 Minn. Ct. App. 1996

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by