Cited by

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

224 citing documents.

Equity Residential Holdings, LLC v. City of Minneapolis Minn. Ct. App. 2026
We have also observed that “the 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).
In the Matter of the Civil Commitment of Michael Leroy Deyo Minn. Ct. App. 2026
(stating that “the task of extending 9 existing law falls to the supreme court or the legislature”), rev. denied (Minn. Dec.
State of Minnesota v. Dustan Charles Schmitt Minn. Ct. App. 2026
This court has also consistently refused to expand new rights beyond those already recognized 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.
Joe Hoffman v. State Farm Fire and Casualty 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.
Josh Campion, et al v. National Collegiate Athletics Association, The Big Ten Conference, Inc., The University of Minnesota 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 v. Tim Walz, et al., Mary Moriarty 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 v. Integrative Health, PLLC, Aaron Leet, et al 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 v. The Cincinnati Insurance … Minn. Ct. App. 2025
Randy Dale Sixta v. Lincoln County Sheriff’s Office 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 v. Abdirahman Mohamed Abdi 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.
Kimberly Lowry, on behalf of herself and the Proposed Rule 23 Classes, et al. (A24-0849) (A24-1910) v. City … 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.
A24-1455 A24-1700 A24-1741 A24-1750 In the Matter of the Petition of Northern States Power Company, d/b/a Xcel Energy, … 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., Chris Beck, et al v. Baker Tilly US, LLP 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 v. Jared James Sprowls 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 v. J’Shaon Rashi Stevenson 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).
Tyler Timberlake v. Brian O’Hara (A24-1282) (A24-1331), City of Minneapolis (A24-1282) (A24-1331) Minn. Ct. App. 2025
Lauren Strahan v. Josh Boone, Prime Comms Retail, LLC, AT&T Mobility II, LLC Minn. Ct. App. 2025
State of Minnesota v. Weheliye Abdulcadir Abucar Gaal 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 v. City of Minneapolis 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 v. Ismeldo Isai Nolasco-Salanic 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 v. Michael O. Freeman, David Hough, et al 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, Kibble Equipment … Minn. Ct. App. 2024
SECURA Insurance Company, as subrogee of Lance Goettl d/b/a TLG Farm Partnership v. Deere & Company, Kibble Equipment … 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, et al v. City of Minnetonka Minn. Ct. App. 2024
Shane Feldhaus, et al 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 Sveindis Charais, … Minn. Ct. App. 2024
Minnesota Citizens Concerned for Life, Inc. v. Joint Revocable Trust Agreement of John N. Charais and Sveindis Charais, … 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 v. Wendland Utz, LTD, et al 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 v. The City of Minneapolis, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, et al 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 v. Radisson Blue MOA, LLC, et al 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 v. IMT Insurance Company Minn. Ct. App. 2023
Alejandro Cruz-Guzman, as guardian and next friend of his minor children, et al v. State of Minnesota, et … Minn. Ct. App. 2022
but it does not fall to this court.” rev. denied (Minn. Dec.
M.A.A.C., Inc. v. Harley J. Winters, d/b/a Harley's Dig -All 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 v. Carlos Antonio Banegas Rodriguez 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 v. Brian John Irgens (OID No. 247545), and all other persons unknown having or … 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 v. State of Minnesota 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 v. Coon Rapids Gyms, LLC, dba Xperience … Minn. Ct. App. 2021
Mary Jane Gross v. Prestige Parking & Valet LLC 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 v. Matt Monoleetio Vogel Minn. Ct. App. 2021
review denied (Minn. Dec.
State of Minnesota v. Ismail Adam Abdo 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 v. Terry Allen Stewart 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 v. DeLaSalle High School, et al 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.