Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Shetka v. Kueppers, Kueppers, Von Feldt & Salmen, 454 N.W.2d 916.

76 citing documents.

Moren Ex Rel. Moren v. Jax Restaurant 679 N.W.2d 165 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
§ 323A.3-05(a) (2002); Shetka v. Kueppers, Kueppers, Von Feldt, & Salmen
Marriage of Kielley v. Kielley 674 N.W.2d 770 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
Marriage of Kielley v. Kielley 674 N.W.2d 770 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
Shetka v. Kueppers, Kueppers, Von Feldt Salmen
Weinberger v. Maplewood Review 648 N.W.2d 249 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
Weinberger v. Maplewood Review 648 N.W.2d 249 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
Shetka v. Kueppers, Kueppers, Von Feldt & Salmen, Zerilli v. Smith, 656 F.2d 705, 710 (D.C.Cir.1981) (stating that the standard of review for a denial of a motion to compel non-party media disclosure of sources is abuse of discretion).
Goins v. West Group 619 N.W.2d 424 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
Goins v. West Group 619 N.W.2d 424 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
“[T]he trial judge has wide discretion to issue discovery orders and, absent clear abuse of that discretion, normally its order with respect thereto will not be disturbed.” Shetka v. Kueppers, Kuep-pers, Von Feldt & Salmen
Minnesota Twins Partnership v. State Ex Rel. Hatch 592 N.W.2d 847 Minn. 1999
Minnesota Twins Partnership v. State Ex Rel. Hatch 592 N.W.2d 847 Minn. 1999
Shetka v. Kueppers, Kueppers, Von Feldt & Salmen
Kellar v. VonHoltum 568 N.W.2d 186 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
Kellar v. VonHoltum 568 N.W.2d 186 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
“[T]he trial judge has wide discretion to issue discovery orders and, absent clear abuse of that discretion, normally its order with respect thereto will not be disturbed.” Shetka v. Kueppers, Kueppers, Von Feldt & Salmen
Behm v. John Nuveen & Co., Inc. 555 N.W.2d 301 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
Behm v. John Nuveen & Co., Inc. 555 N.W.2d 301 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
P. 26.02; Shetka v. Kueppers, Kueppers, Von Feldt & Salmen
Lundman v. McKown 530 N.W.2d 807 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
Lundman v. McKown 530 N.W.2d 807 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
Shetka v. Kueppers, Kueppers, Von Feldt & Salmen
Hyatt Regency Phoenix Hotel Co. v. Winston & Strawn 907 P.2d 506 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
In Re Quinn 503 N.W.2d 480 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
In Re Quinn 503 N.W.2d 480 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
Shetka v. Kueppers, Kueppers, Von Feldt & Salmen
In re Access to Law Enforcement Records Relating to the Arrest of Quinn 503 N.W.2d 480 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
In re Access to Law Enforcement Records Relating to the Arrest of Quinn 503 N.W.2d 480 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
Shetka v. Kueppers, Kueppers, Von Feldt & Salmen
M.H. v. Caritas Family Services 488 N.W.2d 282 Minn. 1992
M.H. v. Caritas Family Services 488 N.W.2d 282 Minn. 1992
1(a) (1990); Shetka v. Kueppers, Kueppers, Von Feldt and Salmen, , 918 n. 1 (Minn.1990).
Muehlstedt v. City of Lino Lakes 473 N.W.2d 892 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
Muehlstedt v. City of Lino Lakes 473 N.W.2d 892 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
TKDA, however, argues that under Shetka v. Kueppers, Kueppers, Von Feldt & Salmen, the trial court erred in allowing assessment of punitive damages.
Swanlund v. Shimano Indus. Corp., Ltd. 459 N.W.2d 151 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
Swanlund v. Shimano Indus. Corp., Ltd. 459 N.W.2d 151 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
Rather, the judge must ascertain whether there exists pri-ma facie evidence that the defendants acted with “willful indifference.” Shetka v. Kueppers, Kueppers, Von Feldt & Salmen, , 918 n. 1 (Minn.1990).