Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Tereault v. Palmer, 413 N.W.2d 283.

220 citing documents.

Josh Campion, et al., Appellants, Minn. Ct. App. 2026
12, 1990) ; (declining to extend implied warranty of fitness, provided by statute, to homes not included in statute because “the task of extending existing law falls to the supreme court or the legislature, but it does not fall to this court”), rev. denied (Minn. Dec.
Minnesota Gun Owners Caucus, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2026
“[T]he task of extending existing law falls to the supreme court or the legislature, but it does not fall to this court.” rev. denied (Minn. Dec.
Fasching Ventures LLC, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2026
“[T]he task of extending existing law falls to the supreme court or the legislature, but it does not fall to this court.” rev. denied (Minn. Dec.
In re The Gus A. Chafoulias Revocable Trust, dated April 28, 2005, as amended Minn. Ct. App. 2026
In re The Gus A. Chafoulias Revocable Trust, dated April 28, 2005, as amended Minn. Ct. App. 2026
-86 (Minn. App. 1987), rev. denied (Minn. Dec.
Benjamin Menier, a minor, by and through Robin Menier as parent and natural guardian, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
Randy Dale Sixta, Appellant, vs. Lincoln County Sheriff’s Office, Respondent Minn. Ct. App. 2025
(“The task of extending existing law falls to the supreme court or the legislature, but it does not fall to this court.”), rev. denied (Minn. Dec.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
(“[T]he task of extending existing law falls to the supreme court or the legislature, but it does not fall to this court.”), rev. denied (Minn. Dec.
A24-1910 Minn. Ct. App. 2025
statute and amend it accordingly”) (quotations omitted); (“[T]he task of extending existing law falls to the supreme court or the legislature, but it does not fall to this court.”), rev. denied (Minn. Dec.
A24-1454 A24-1455 A24-1700 A24-1741 A24-1750 Minn. Ct. App. 2025
(“[T]he task of extending existing law falls to the supreme court or the legislature, but it does not fall to this court.”), rev. denied (Minn. Dec.
Eugene and Sandra Alexander, et al., Plaintiffs, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
Because it is not clear that the Minnesota Supreme Court has adopted cross-jurisdictional class-action tolling and it is not the task of this court to extend existing law, rev. denied (Minn. Dec.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
(“[T]he task of extending existing law falls to the supreme court or the legislature, but it does not fall to this court.”).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
(“[T]he task of extending existing law falls to the supreme court or the legislature[.]”), rev. denied (Minn. Dec 18, 1987).
A24-1331 Minn. Ct. App. 2025
Lauren Strahan, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
We are mindful that an opinion of the Minnesota Supreme Court is “a definitive statement of the law of Minnesota,” and that this court should not encroach on the supreme court’s authority, rev. denied (Minn. Dec.
Arianna Anderson, et al., Appellants, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
(“[T]he task of extending existing law falls to the supreme court or the legislature, but it does not fall to this court.”), rev. denied (Minn. Dec.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
“[T]he task of extending existing law falls to the supreme court or the 9 legislature, but it does not fall to this court.” rev. denied (Minn. Dec.
Amy Sweasy Tamburino, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2024
pes of bad faith is impossible” and reports that “judicial decisions” have recognized bad faith to include things like “evasion of the spirit of the bargain.” We decline Sweasy’s invitation to expand the implied-covenant claim based on comment d because “the task of extending existing law falls to the supreme court or the legislature, but it does not fall to this court.” rev. denied (Minn. Dec.
SECURA Insurance Company, as subrogee of Lance Goettl d/b/a TLG Farm Partnership v. Deere & Company, ... Minn. Ct. App. 2024
SECURA Insurance Company, as subrogee of Lance Goettl d/b/a TLG Farm Partnership v. Deere & Company, ... Minn. Ct. App. 2024
(rejecting argument that this court should extend the law to recognize an implied warranty of fitness and explaining that “the task of extending existing law falls to the supreme court or the legislature, but it does not fall to this court”), rev. denied (Minn. Dec.
Shane Feldhaus v. City of Minnetonka Minn. Ct. App. 2024
Shane Feldhaus v. City of Minnetonka Minn. Ct. App. 2024
(stating that “the task of extending existing law falls to the supreme court or the legislature, but it does not fall to this court”), rev. denied (Minn. Dec.
Minnesota Citizens Concerned for Life, Inc. v. Joint Revocable Trust Agreement of John N. Charais and ... Minn. Ct. App. 2024
Minnesota Citizens Concerned for Life, Inc. v. Joint Revocable Trust Agreement of John N. Charais and ... Minn. Ct. App. 2024
“[T]he task of extending existing law falls to the supreme court or the legislature, but it does not fall to this court.” d 283, 286 (Minn. App. 1987), rev. denied (Minn. Dec.
State of Minnesota, ex rel. Nicole Rae Cloud v. Paul Schnell, Commissioner of Corrections, ... Minn. Ct. App. 2024
State of Minnesota, ex rel. Nicole Rae Cloud v. Paul Schnell, Commissioner of Corrections, ... Minn. Ct. App. 2024
(stating that “[b]ecause this court is limited in its function to correcting errors it cannot create public policy”), rev. denied (Minn. May 16, 2000); (“[T]he task of extending existing law falls to the supreme court or the legislature, but it does not fall to this court.”), rev. denied (Minn. Dec.
Craig A Reichel, et al., Appellants, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
See Tereault v. Palmer , (“[t]he task of extending existing law falls to the supreme court or the legislature, but it does not fall to this court.”), rev. denied (Minn. Dec.
East Phillips Neighborhood Institute, Inc., et al., Appellants, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
“[T]he task of extending existing law falls to the supreme court or the legislature, but it does not fall to this court.” rev. denied (Minn. Dec.
Ann Massert, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
(“[T]he task of extending existing law falls to the supreme court or the legislature, but it does not fall to this court.”), rev. denied (Minn. Dec.
Charlotte Copiskey, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
Alejandro Cruz-Guzman, as guardian and next friend of his minor children, et al., Appellants, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
but it does not fall to this court.” rev. denied (Minn. Dec.
M.A.A.C., Inc., Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
(observing that such requests are the province of the supreme court or the legislature), rev. denied (Minn. Dec.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
(“[T]he task of extending existing law falls to the supreme court or th e legislature, but it does not fall to this court.”), rev. denied (Minn. Dec.
Megan Guetzkow, et al., Respondents, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
See Sefkow v. Sefkow , (“The function of the court of appeals is limited to ide ntifying errors and then correcting them.”); (“[T]he task of extending existing law falls to the supreme court or the legislature, but it does not fall to this court.”), rev. denied (Minn. Dec.
Peter Devonn Crosby, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
In the Matter of the Welfare of the Child of: L. R. D. and Y. F. K., Parents. Minn. Ct. App. 2021
("[T]he task of extending existing law falls to the supreme court or the legislature, but it does not fall to this court."), rev. denied (Minn. Dec.
SV AP III Riverdale Commons LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, Respondent, vs. Coon Rapids Gyms, LLC, dba … Minn. Ct. App. 2021
Mary Jane Gross, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
review denied (Minn. Dec.
In the Matter of the MSRS General Employees Retirement Plan Retirement Benefit of Pamela S. Johnson. Minn. Ct. App. 2021
But this court may neither incorporate a provision from one statute into another nor replace one word in a statute with another: “[ T]he task of extending existing law falls to the supreme court or the legislature, but it does not fall to this court.” d 283, 286 (Minn. App. 1987), review denied (Minn. Dec.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
review denied (Minn. Dec.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
“[T]he task of extending existing law falls to the supreme court or the 6 legislature, but it does not fall to this court.” Tereault v. Palmer , review denied (Minn. Dec.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
(“[T]he task of extending existing law falls to the supreme court or the legislature, but it does not fall to this court.”), review denied (Minn. Dec.
Brandon Trennepohl, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
review denied (Minn. Dec.
In re the Matter of the Annexation of Real Property to City of Bemidji from Bemidji Township (MBAU … Minn. Ct. App. 2020
(“[T]he task of extending existing law falls to the supreme court or the legislature, but it does not fall to this court.”), review denied (Minn. Dec.
In the Matter of the Civil Commitment of: Christopher Scott Malz. Minn. Ct. App. 2019
“[T]he task of extending existing law falls to the supreme court or the legislature, but it does not fall to this court.” d 283, 286 (Minn. App. 1987), review denied (Minn. Dec.
Timberland Partners, Inc., Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Cf. Tereault v. Palmer , (“[T]he task of extending existing law falls to the supreme court or the legislature, but it does not fall to this court.”), review denied (Minn. Dec.
Shawn Richard Burrington, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
But “the task of extending existing law falls to the supreme 8 court or the legislature, but it does not fall to this court.” d 283, 286 (Minn. App. 1987), review denied (Minn. Dec.
Alla K. Popovich, as wife and Guardian Ad Litem for Aleksandr M. Popovich, et al., Appellants, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
“[T]he task of extending existing law falls to the supreme court or the legislature, but it does not fall to this court.” review denied (Minn. Dec.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
13 review denied ( M i n n .