Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Peterson v. BASF Corp., 675 N.W.2d 57.

24 citing documents.

In the Matter of the Welfare of the Children of: L.K., Parent Minn. 2026
In the Matter of the Welfare of the Children of: L.K., Parent Minn. 2026
(explaining that “[t]he law of the case doctrine does not generally bar a higher court from reviewing an earlier decision of a lower court”), vacated on other grounds, 544 U.S. 1012 (2005); n.7 (Minn. 2008) (“We are not generally barred ‘from reviewing an earlier d
EP Land LLC, et al., Appellants, Minn. Ct. App. 2024
Makenzie Moore, a minor, by and through her Conservator, First Fiduciary Corporation, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
(defining law of the case as “a rule of practice that once an issue is considered and adjudicated, that issue should not be reexamined in that court or any lower court throughout the case”), vacated on other grounds , 544 U.S. 1012 (2005).
Madison Equities, Inc., Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
Cf. Peterson v. BASF Corp. , (“Law of the case is a rule of practice that once an issue is considered and adjudicated, that issue should not be reexamined in that court or any lower court throughout the case.”), cert.
Joseph Roach, et al., Appellants, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
See Peterson v. BASF Corp. , (citations and quotations omitted), vacated on other grounds, 544 U.S. 1012, 125 S. Ct. 1968 (2005).
Eric D. Humphreys, et al., Respondents, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
See Peterson v. BASF Corp. , -68 (Minn. 2004), vacated on other grounds , BASF Corp. v. Peterson , 554 U.S. 1012, 125 S. Ct. 1968 (2005) (concluding that the court need not review an issue that could have been brought in a prior appeal, but was not, because “consideration of [the petitioner’s] [newly raised] arguments .
Leiendecker v. Asian Women United of Minnesota 895 N.W.2d 623 Minn. 2017
Leiendecker v. Asian Women United of Minnesota 895 N.W.2d 623 Minn. 2017
“[I]f a party petitions for review, the party must bring all claims then ripe in that petition for review or waive further review of such claims in our court.” Dahlin, d at 304 ; (explaining that “to facilitate fair and efficient judicial proceedings, matters that are ripe for review should be brought to the court’s attention when submitting a petition for review”), vacated on other grounds, 544 U.S. 1012 , 125 S.Ct.
In re the Marriage of: Mary Patricia Myhre v. Steven Kenneth Myhre Minn. Ct. App. 2015
In re the Marriage of: Mary Patricia Myhre v. Steven Kenneth Myhre Minn. Ct. App. 2015
In Peterson v. BASF Corp., the supreme court addressed the propriety “of reviewing an issue that could have been raised in a prior appeal, but was not.” vacated on other grounds, BASF Corp. v. Peterson, 544 U.S. 1012, 125 S. Ct. 1968 (2005).
DeCook v. Rochester International Airport Joint Zoning Board 796 N.W.2d 299 Minn. 2011
DeCook v. Rochester International Airport Joint Zoning Board 796 N.W.2d 299 Minn. 2011
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
State v. Dahlin 753 N.W.2d 300 Minn. 2008
State v. Dahlin 753 N.W.2d 300 Minn. 2008
The conclusion that a vacated on other grounds, BASF Corp. v. Peterson, 544 U.S. 1012 , 125 S.Ct.
State v. Kuhlman 729 N.W.2d 577 Minn. 2007
State v. Kuhlman 729 N.W.2d 577 Minn. 2007
vacated and remanded on other grounds, 544 U.S. 1012 , 125 S.Ct.
Anderson v. State, Department of Natural Resources 693 N.W.2d 181 Minn. 2005
Anderson v. State, Department of Natural Resources 693 N.W.2d 181 Minn. 2005
(state consumer-fraud claim premised on improper marketing not preempted), pet.
Brekke v. THM Biomedical, Inc. 683 N.W.2d 771 Minn. 2004
Duxbury v. Spex Feeds, Inc. 681 N.W.2d 380 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
Duxbury v. Spex Feeds, Inc. 681 N.W.2d 380 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
See, e.g.; -74 (Minn.App.2003), aff 'd on other grounds, review denied (Minn. Sept.

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by