Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Johnson v. Hunter, 447 N.W.2d 871.

44 citing documents.

John Moore, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
Motors Corp., see also Johnson v. Hunter , (holding that a dismissal with prejudice, even on a nonsubstantive ground, is an adjudication on the merits).
In re the Marriage of: Kathryn Marie Larson, petitioner, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
(“Vacating an order is a matter vested in a trial court’s discretion.
In the Matter of the Welfare of the Child of: Q. S. M. and T. R. S., Parents. Minn. Ct. App. 2018
519 U.S. 102, 119, 117 S. Ct. 555, 565 (1996) (quotation omitted); (“Establishment of the parent-child relationship is the most fundamental right a child possesses to be equated in importance with personal liberty and the most basic constitutiona l rights.”) (quotation omitted).
Maria Olson, et al., Appellants, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
A judgment “can form the basis for res judicata” even when it “is disposed of on nonsubstantive grounds.”
In re the Matter of the Petition of Nationstar Mortgage, LLC, For a New Certificate of Title After … Minn. Ct. App. 2015
In re the Matter of the Petition of Nationstar Mortgage, LLC, For a New Certificate of Title After … Minn. Ct. App. 2015
(stating that dismissal with prejudice is an adjudication on the merits and “can form the basis for res judicata”).
CitiMortgage, Inc., a New York corporation, in relation to Certificate of Title No. 27046 issued for land in … Minn. Ct. App. 2015
CitiMortgage, Inc., a New York corporation, in relation to Certificate of Title No. 27046 issued for land in … Minn. Ct. App. 2015
A & M Market LLC v. West Side Groceries, Inc., and third party v. Stryker Market, LLC, third … Minn. Ct. App. 2015
A & M Market LLC v. West Side Groceries, Inc., and third party v. Stryker Market, LLC, third … Minn. Ct. App. 2015
A dismissal under rule 41.02(a) “operates as an adjudication on the merits.” d 871, 873 (Minn. 1989).
Dorman v. Steffen 666 N.W.2d 409 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
Dorman v. Steffen 666 N.W.2d 409 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
(stating “[establishment of the parent-child relationship is the most fundamental right á child possesses * * (quotation and citation omitted)).
SMA Services, Inc. v. Weaver 632 N.W.2d 770 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
SMA Services, Inc. v. Weaver 632 N.W.2d 770 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
rev’d in part on other grounds
Balasuriya v. Bemel 617 N.W.2d 596 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
Balasuriya v. Bemel 617 N.W.2d 596 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
Mower County Human Services Ex Rel. Garcia v. Graves 611 N.W.2d 386 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
Mower County Human Services Ex Rel. Garcia v. Graves 611 N.W.2d 386 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
(stating that family members are not necessarily in privity).
Gramling v. MEMORIAL BLOOD CENTERS 601 N.W.2d 457 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
Gramling v. MEMORIAL BLOOD CENTERS 601 N.W.2d 457 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
The county’s duty under these statutes is to represent the state’s interest in paternity actions, which “is to secure an adequate settlement and prevent the child from ‘becoming] a public charge.’ ” review denied (Minn. April 27, 1992) ().
Hall v. Lalli 977 P.2d 776 Ariz. 1999
Losoya v. Richardson 584 N.W.2d 425 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
Losoya v. Richardson 584 N.W.2d 425 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
Hall v. Lalli 952 P.2d 748 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1998
Murphy v. Myers 560 N.W.2d 752 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
Murphy v. Myers 560 N.W.2d 752 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
Rb v. Cs 536 N.W.2d 634 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
R.B. v. C.S. 536 N.W.2d 634 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
R.B. v. C.S. 536 N.W.2d 634 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
the child was allowed to commence a separate paternity action where she had been unrepresented in an earlier adjudication.
Rb v. Cs 536 N.W.2d 634 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
the child was allowed to commence a separate paternity action where she had been unrepresented in an earlier adjudication.
County of Dakota v. Hendrickson 482 N.W.2d 516 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
County of Dakota v. Hendrickson 482 N.W.2d 516 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
Benson v. Hackbarth 481 N.W.2d 375 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
Benson v. Hackbarth 481 N.W.2d 375 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
In determining privity, the Minnesota Supreme Court has directed that “privity must be determined by the facts of each case.”
Spaeth v. Warren 478 N.W.2d 319 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
Spaeth v. Warren 478 N.W.2d 319 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
Hiegel asserts that case law requires that children be joined in paternity actions
Jlb v. Teb 474 N.W.2d 599 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
J.L.B. v. T.E.B. 474 N.W.2d 599 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
Jlb v. Teb 474 N.W.2d 599 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
J.L.B. v. T.E.B. 474 N.W.2d 599 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
“Vacating an order is a matter vested in a trial court’s discretion and will not be overturned absent a clear abuse of that discretion.”
Marriage of Reynolds v. Reynolds 458 N.W.2d 103 Minn. 1990
Marriage of Reynolds v. Reynolds 458 N.W.2d 103 Minn. 1990
The court of appeals ruled not only that the trial court erred in denying the motion for the appointment of a guardian — -75 (Minn.1989), in so ruling — but also ruled that the statute of limitations barred Michael from claiming nonpaternity in the dissolution and support action.
Marriage of Reynolds v. Reynolds 454 N.W.2d 271 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
Marriage of Reynolds v. Reynolds 454 N.W.2d 271 Minn. Ct. App. 1990