Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Illinois Farmers Insurance Co. v. Reed, 662 N.W.2d 529.

22 citing documents.

In the Matter of the Minnesota Racing Commission’s Approval of Running Aces Casino, Hotel & Racetrack’s Amended Plan … Minn. Ct. App. 2026
Khan Turouk v. Nyawan Kuon Dak, United States Department of Agriculture Rural Housing Services Minn. Ct. App. 2023
Co. v. Reed , -33 (Minn. 2003).
Thomas Shimota, B&T Automotive, Inc., et al v. Klemp & Stanton, PLLP, et al., Estate of Robert Shimota, … Minn. Ct. App. 2023
(referring to collateral estoppel as an “equitable doctrine”) .
Western National Mutual Insurance Company v. Alyssa Marie Donahue, Scott Williams Minn. Ct. App. 2023
(“[A]n insurer may not use an insured’s criminal conviction to collaterally estop a subsequent civil suit brought by a third-party crime victim based on the intentional act exclusion within the policy.”).
Lariat Companies Inc. v. Barbara Wigley, Michael Wigley Minn. Ct. App. 2023
-33 (Minn. 2003) (quoting Ellis, d at 702, 7 04).
Erik Peterson v. Deborah Ellis, et al Minn. Ct. App. 2020
Nicholas Johnson and Michelle Johnson, individually and as parents and natural guardians of D.J., a minor v. West … Minn. Ct. App. 2018
In re: Estate of Loretta M. Chisholm, Decedent Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Sheehy Construction Company v. City of Centerville Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Sheehy Construction Company v. City of Centerville Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Daniel Garcia-Mendoza v. 2003 Chevy Tahoe, Vin #1GNEC13V23R143453, Plate #235JBM, et al Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Daniel Garcia-Mendoza v. 2003 Chevy Tahoe, Vin #1GNEC13V23R143453, Plate #235JBM, et al Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Fain v. Andersen 816 N.W.2d 696 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
Fain v. Andersen 816 N.W.2d 696 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
Curtis v. Altria Group, Inc. 792 N.W.2d 836 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
Curtis v. Altria Group, Inc. 792 N.W.2d 836 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
that “[t]he doctrine of collateral estoppel originated in the English common law” and “is based on the judicial policy considerations of conservation of judicial resources, preservation of the courts’ integrity by preventing inconsistent results, promotion of final judgments, and protection of parties from relitigating the same issues.” rev’d on other grounds, -30 (Minn.2003).
SECURA Supreme Insurance Company v. MSM 755 N.W.2d 320 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
SECURA Supreme Insurance Company v. MSM 755 N.W.2d 320 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
Gerber v. Eastman 673 N.W.2d 854 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
Gerber v. Eastman 673 N.W.2d 854 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
Noske v. Friedberg 670 N.W.2d 740 Minn. 2003
Noske v. Friedberg 670 N.W.2d 740 Minn. 2003

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by