Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Griffis v. Luban, 646 N.W.2d 527.

20 citing documents.

Mary J. Dykstra v. Tony Dykstra 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.”
SAF Holdings LLC v. CalPro ADAS Solutions LLC, et al., Protagonist Path LLC, et al., Repairify, Inc., et … Minn. Ct. App. 2025
William Woischke, et al., Woischke Enterprises, LLC v. Stursberg & Fine, Inc., Henry Stursberg, et al 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. v. Garrett Marshall, Xponential Fitness, LLC Minn. Ct. App. 2020
granted, 140 S. Ct. 916 (2020)3; -35 (Minn. 2002).
Michelle Young, et al v. Kenneth Maciora Minn. Ct. App. 2020
In re the Matter of the Civil Commitment of: Matthew David Feeney Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Michael P. Schaefer, et al v. Archdiocese of St. Paul and Minneapolis, et al., Roman Catholic Diocese of … Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Michael P. Schaefer, et al v. Archdiocese of St. Paul and Minneapolis, et al., Roman Catholic Diocese of … 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, et al v. MoneyMutual, LLC 863 N.W.2d 789 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Scott Rilley, et al 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