Cited by
Opinions in Minnesota that cite Griffis v. Luban, 646 N.W.2d 527.
-
Mary J. Dykstra, Respondent,
Minn. Ct. App. 2025
“Minnesota courts will uphold a foreign court’s exercise of personal jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant” if exercising personal jurisdiction is in “compliance with the foreign state’s law” and does not “offend the Due Process Clause of the federal constitution.”
- A24-1652 Minn. Ct. App. 2025
-
William Woischke, et al., Plaintiffs,
Minn. Ct. App. 2022
6 the exercise of personal jurisdiction is in “compliance with the foreign state’s law” and does “not offend the Due Process Clause of the federal constitution.” (determining whether a fo reign court had personal jurisdiction when the nonresident defendant did not challenge personal jurisdiction in the foreign court).
-
Snap Fitness, Inc., Respondent,
Minn. Ct. App. 2020
granted, 140 S. Ct. 916 (2020)3; -35 (Minn. 2002).
- Michelle Young, et al., Respondents, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
- In re the Matter of the Civil Commitment of: Matthew David Feeney. Minn. Ct. App. 2019
- Michael P. Schaefer v. Archdiocese of St. Paul and Minneapolis, Roman Catholic Diocese of Orange Revocable Trust Minn. Ct. App. 2016
-
Michael P. Schaefer v. Archdiocese of St. Paul and Minneapolis, Roman Catholic Diocese of Orange Revocable Trust
Minn. Ct. App. 2016
A court may exercise “general” jurisdiction over a defendant who has had “continuous and systematic contacts with the state.” (quotation omitted).
- Newman-Lakka Cancer Foundation v. Christine E. Briggs Minn. Ct. App. 2016
-
Newman-Lakka Cancer Foundation v. Christine E. Briggs
Minn. Ct. App. 2016
The district court applied both the Calder effects test, -35 (Minn. 2002), and Minnesota’s 1 A. The Calder effects test In intentional-torts cases, Minnesota courts apply the Calder effects test for specific jurisdiction, evaluating whether a
- Capital One Bank USA, NA v. Gbenga J. Ekinnola Minn. Ct. App. 2016
-
Capital One Bank USA, NA v. Gbenga J. Ekinnola
Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Such judgments are not entitled to full faith and credit in Minnesota.”
- Scott Rilley v. MoneyMutual, LLC 863 N.W.2d 789 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
-
Scott Rilley v. MoneyMutual, LLC
863 N.W.2d 789
Minn. Ct. App. 2015
A court must focus “on the relationship among the defendant, the forum, and the litigation.” 4 (quotation omitted).
- Christian v. Birch 763 N.W.2d 50 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
- Christian v. Birch 763 N.W.2d 50 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
- Juelich v. Yamazaki Mazak Optonics Corp. 682 N.W.2d 565 Minn. 2004
- Juelich v. Yamazaki Mazak Optonics Corp. 682 N.W.2d 565 Minn. 2004
- Wick v. Wick 670 N.W.2d 599 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
- Wick v. Wick 670 N.W.2d 599 Minn. Ct. App. 2003