Cited by

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

220 citing documents.

In the Matter of: Naomi Rae Marx, petitioner, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
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.”) , review denied (Minn. Dec.
White Bear Lake Restoration Ass'n ex rel. State v. Minn. Dep't of Natural Res. 928 N.W.2d 351 Minn. Ct. App. 2019
White Bear Lake Restoration Ass'n ex rel. State v. Minn. Dep't of Natural Res. 928 N.W.2d 351 Minn. Ct. App. 2019
12, 1990); Tereault v. Palmer , , 286 (Minn. App. 1987) (explaining that the authority to create new law rests not with this court but in the legislature and supreme court), review denied (Minn. Dec.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, 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.
Otto v. Comm'r Safety 924 N.W.2d 658 Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Otto v. Comm'r Safety 924 N.W.2d 658 Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Tereault v. Palmer , , 286 (Minn. App. 1987), review denied (Minn. Dec.
Producers Livestock Credit Corporation, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
“[T]he task of extending existing law falls to th e supreme court or the legisl ature, but it does not fall to this court.” review denied (Minn. Dec.
Forslund v. State 924 N.W.2d 25 Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Forslund v. State 924 N.W.2d 25 Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Tereault v. Palmer , , 286 (Minn. App. 1987), review denied (Minn. Dec.
Assata Kenneh, Appellant, 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.
In the Matter of the Welfare of the Child of: C. R. T. and P. B. B., Parents. Minn. Ct. App. 2018
See Sefkow v. Sefkow , (noting that the function of this court is limited to identifying and correcting errors); Tereault v. Palmer , (stating that extending laws is the province of the supreme court or the legi slature, but not this court), review denied (Minn. Dec.
, A17-2080, A17-2081, A18-0015 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
“[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.
Glenda Brush, Relator, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
review denied (Minn. Dec.
Misty Jensen, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
at 772; see also Tereault v. Palmer , (stating that “the 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.
Krista Friese, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Finally, “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.
Dering Pierson Group, LLC, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Minnesota law does not recogniz e the application of conditional privilege in this context, and “the task of extending existi ng law falls to the supreme court or [to] the legislature, but it does not fall to this court.” Tereault v. Palmer , review denied (Minn. Dec.
Marshall Municipal Utilities, petitioner, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
See Sefkow v. Sefkow , (“The function of the court of appeals is limi ted to identifying erro rs and then correcting them.”); Tereault v. Palmer , (setting forth principle that “the task of extending exis ting law falls to the supreme court or the legislature, but it does not fall to this court”), review denied (Minn. Dec.
In re Complaint Brought on Behalf of Student 1 and All Students in the Functional Skills Program at … Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Iron & Supply Co.’s Proposed Metal Shredding Facility, -45 (Minn. App. 2000) (“[W]hen an agency reasonably interprets a statute, it is the role of the legislature or the supreme court, and not the role of this cour t, to overrule that interpretation.”); (“[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 v. Christensen 901 N.W.2d 648 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State v. Christensen 901 N.W.2d 648 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
See Alexander, d at 349; (Minn.App.
A16-1372 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
See Alexander, d at 349; (“[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.
Asset Marketing Services, LLC, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
(declining to expand a breach -of-warranty claim, explaining that “we believe the 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. 2017
(“Th e function of the court of appeals is limited to identifying erro rs and then correcting th em.” (citations omitted)); (“[T]he task of extending existing law falls to the supreme court or the legislat ure, but it does not fall to this court.”), review denied (Minn. Dec.
A16-2003 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
review denied (Minn. Dec.
Otto v. Wright County 899 N.W.2d 186 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Otto v. Wright County 899 N.W.2d 186 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
(noting that, as an error-correcting court, this court lacks authority to change established supreme court precedent), aff'd, ("This is an error-correcting court, and we apply the best law available to us."), aff'd, ("[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.
Trivedi, LLC, et al., Appellants, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
(“[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 Re the Matter of the Application of: John Doe for a Change of Birthdate to April 10, … Minn. Ct. App. 2017
(“[T]he task of extending existing law falls to the supreme court or to the legislature, but it does not fall to this court.”), review denied (Minn. Dec.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
“[T]he task of extending existing law falls to the supreme court or the legislature, but it does not fall to [the court of appeals].” Tereault v. Palmer , review denied (Minn. Dec.
A16-0880 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
.”), review 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.”), review denied (Minn. Dec.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
(“[T]he task of extending existing law falls to the supreme court or the legislat ure, but it does not fall to this court.”), review denied (Minn. Dec.
Vincent Rosetta v. Quality Bicycle Products, Inc., Relator, Department of Employment and Economic Development Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Vincent Rosetta v. Quality Bicycle Products, Inc., Relator, Department of Employment and Economic Development Minn. Ct. App. 2017
But we decline to take this step because “the task of extending existing law falls to the supreme court or the legislature, but does not fall to this court.” review denied (Minn. Dec.
State of Minnesota v. Justin Dillard Thomas 890 N.W.2d 413 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
In the Matter of the Welfare of the Child of: L. M. P., Parent. Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Nichole Cox v. Mid-Minnesota Mutual Insurance Company Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Justin Dillard Thomas 890 N.W.2d 413 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
“[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 Welfare of the Child of: L. M. P., Parent. Minn. Ct. App. 2017
(“[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.
Nichole Cox v. Mid-Minnesota Mutual Insurance Company Minn. Ct. App. 2017
(explaining that public policy arguments to modify existing law are within the purview of the Minnesota Supreme Court or the legislature, rather than the court of appeals), review denied (Minn. Dec.
State of Minnesota v. Joshua Jerome O�Brien Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Joshua Jerome O�Brien Minn. Ct. App. 2016
(noting that setting forth the principle that “the 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.
Cannon Falls Oil Company, Inc. v. Minnesota Department of Transportation Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Cannon Falls Oil Company, Inc. v. Minnesota Department of Transportation Minn. Ct. App. 2016
review denied (Minn. Dec.
Stephanie Rush, (A16-0249) v. The Westwood Village Partnership, (A16-0249), and Jerry Plummer, (A16-0250) v. Riverside Apartments of St. … 887 N.W.2d 701 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Stephanie Rush, (A16-0249) v. The Westwood Village Partnership, (A16-0249), and Jerry Plummer, (A16-0250) v. Riverside Apartments of St. … 887 N.W.2d 701 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Tenants are attempting to expand the scope of the covenant of reasonable repair beyond that articulated by the legislature, and “the 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.
Tyler Lee Johnson v. Commissioner of Public Safety 887 N.W.2d 281 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Tyler Lee Johnson v. Commissioner of Public Safety 887 N.W.2d 281 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
(noting that 24 the task of extending existing law falls to the supreme court and not this court), review denied (Minn. Dec.
State of Minnesota v. Tommy Ray Morgan, Sr. Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Tommy Ray Morgan, Sr. Minn. Ct. App. 2016
(explaining that public-policy arguments to modify existing law are within the purview of the Minnesota Supreme Court or the legislature, and not this court), review denied (Minn. Dec.
Selective Insurance Company of South Carolina v. Quoc D. Huynh, Quoc D. Huynh, Third-party v. Nathan Hintze d/b/a … Minn. Ct. App. 2016