Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Application of Hofstad, 376 N.W.2d 698.

25 citing documents.

Peter G. Noe, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
See Schober v. Comm’r of Revenue, see also Application of Hofstad, (“Where res judicata and collateral estoppel apply, amendment [of the complaint] is improper.”).
Michael Otto Hartmann v. Minnesota Department of Agriculture Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Michael Otto Hartmann v. Minnesota Department of Agriculture Minn. Ct. App. 2017
The doctrine applies only to issues “actually litigated, determined by, and essential to a previous judgment.” (quotation omitted).
Gregg H. Johnson, William Flies v. Township of Florence, State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Gregg H. Johnson, William Flies v. Township of Florence, State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Collateral estoppel only applies to issues “actually litigated, determined by, and essential to a previous judgment.” (quotation omitted).
In the Matter of the Application of Fischer Sand and Aggregate, LLP. Minn. Ct. App. 2015
In the Matter of the Application of Fischer Sand and Aggregate, LLP. Minn. Ct. App. 2015
See Application of Hofstad, (“[f]or the [] court to determine ownership .
Barth v. Stenwick 761 N.W.2d 502 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
Barth v. Stenwick 761 N.W.2d 502 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
Collateral estoppel applies to issues “actually litigated, determined by, and essential to a previous judgment.” (quotation omitted).
Maschoff v. Leiding 696 N.W.2d 834 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
Maschoff v. Leiding 696 N.W.2d 834 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
See, (remanding to district court because res judicata and collateral estoppel did not apply and disputed issue had not yet been litigated); (remanding for district court to exercise discretion on discretionary issue which district court ha
American Accounts & Advisers, Inc. v. Hendrickson 460 N.W.2d 83 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
American Accounts & Advisers, Inc. v. Hendrickson 460 N.W.2d 83 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
Block v. Target Stores, Inc. 458 N.W.2d 705 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
Block v. Target Stores, Inc. 458 N.W.2d 705 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
(reversing award of fees in connection with will contest); (when bona fide issues exist to decide an award of fees is improper)
In Re the Estate of Smith 444 N.W.2d 566 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
In Re the Estate of Smith 444 N.W.2d 566 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Schwandt Sanitation of Paynesville v. City of Paynesville 423 N.W.2d 59 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Schwandt Sanitation of Paynesville v. City of Paynesville 423 N.W.2d 59 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Application of Mrosak 415 N.W.2d 98 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Application of Mrosak 415 N.W.2d 98 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Valento, d at 814 (citing Application of Hofstad, (Minn.Ct.App.
Hofstad v. Hargest 412 N.W.2d 5 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Hofstad v. Hargest 412 N.W.2d 5 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Valento v. Ulrich 402 N.W.2d 809 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Valento v. Ulrich 402 N.W.2d 809 Minn. Ct. App. 1987