Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Stern v. Dill, 442 N.W.2d 322.

44 citing documents.

Kyle William Brenizer, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
(holding that the time for serving affidavits under the 13 statute may be extended, even after the time limits have expired pursuant to Minn. R. Civ.
Jordan Handrich, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
Certified Question United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit Minn. 2018
See, Guillaume & Assocs., Inc., v. Don-John Co.
Larson Ventures, Inc., Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
see Fontaine v. Steen, 759 N.W .2d 672, 676 (Minn. App. 2009) (borrowing from medical -malpractice precedent in legal-malpractice case).
Willie Edd Reynolds v. State of Minnesota 888 N.W.2d 125 Minn. 2016
Willie Edd Reynolds v. State of Minnesota 888 N.W.2d 125 Minn. 2016
But a rule is substantive, and not procedural, when it “ ‘creates, defines and regulates rights.’ ” Johnson, d at 554 ().
Julie L. Pfeiffer, Trustee on behalf of the heirs and next of kin of Dale R. Pfeiffer v. … 851 N.W.2d 626 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Julie L. Pfeiffer, Trustee on behalf of the heirs and next of kin of Dale R. Pfeiffer v. … 851 N.W.2d 626 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
“[S]ubstantive law is that part of the law which creates, defines, and regulates rights, as opposed to ‘adjective or remedial’ law, which prescribes method [sic] of enforcing the rights or obtaining redress for their invasion.” (citing Meagher v. Kavli, 251 Minn. 477, 488, d 871, 879–80 (1958)); (“A statute that does not create a new cause of action or affect a defense is procedural.”).
In re the Welfare of R.S. 805 N.W.2d 44 Minn. 2011
In re the Welfare of R.S. 805 N.W.2d 44 Minn. 2011
In contrast, procedural law “neither creates a new cause of action nor deprives defendant of any defense on the merits.” (quoting Strauch v. Superior Court, 107 Cal.App.3d 45 , 165 Cal.Rptr.
In re the Welfare of the Child of R.S. 793 N.W.2d 752 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
In re the Welfare of the Child of R.S. 793 N.W.2d 752 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
Procedural law “neither creates a new cause of action nor deprives defendant of any defense on the merits.” (quotation omitted).
State v. Chauvin 723 N.W.2d 20 Minn. 2006
State v. Chauvin 723 N.W.2d 20 Minn. 2006
at 554 (first alteration in original) ().
Lake Superior Center Authority v. Hammel, Green & Abrahamson, Inc. 715 N.W.2d 458 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
Mercer v. Andersen 715 N.W.2d 114 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
Mercer v. Andersen 715 N.W.2d 114 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
Lake Superior Center Authority v. Hammel, Green & Abrahamson, Inc. 715 N.W.2d 458 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
-25 (Minn.1989); aff'd by an equally divided court
Anderson v. Rengachary 608 N.W.2d 843 Minn. 2000
Anderson v. Rengachary 608 N.W.2d 843 Minn. 2000
P. 6.02 * ⅜ ⅜.” see also Parker v. O’Phelan, aff 'd without opinion
Tousignant v. St. Louis County 602 N.W.2d 882 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
Tousignant v. St. Louis County 602 N.W.2d 882 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
DeGrande v. Demby 529 N.W.2d 340 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
DeGrande v. Demby 529 N.W.2d 340 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
See Johnson, d at 555 (statutes of limitations are procedural in that they regulate when a party may file a lawsuit and are substantive in that they are outcome determinative); (substantive law creates, defines, and regulates rights).
Lombardo v. Seydow-Weber 529 N.W.2d 702 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
Lombardo v. Seydow-Weber 529 N.W.2d 702 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
6.02 (court may extend statutory time limits where failure to act was result of excusable neglect); (Minn.Stat.
State v. Johnson 514 N.W.2d 551 Minn. 1994
State v. Johnson 514 N.W.2d 551 Minn. 1994
we defined substantive law as “that part of the law which creates, defines and regulates rights, as opposed to * * * ‘remedial law1, which prescribes [the] method of enforcing the rights or obtaining redress for their invasion.” 6 The California Court of *555 Appeal provides another helpful definitio
State v. Johnson 495 N.W.2d 454 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
Followed State v. Johnson 495 N.W.2d 454 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
(); (substantive law “creates, defines and regulates rights, as opposed to * * * enforcing the rights or obtaining redress for their invasion.”) We reaffirm our holding in Batzer that the certification process is a matter of substantive rather than procedural law and that Minn.Stat.
Moen v. Mikhail 454 N.W.2d 422 Minn. 1990
Moen v. Mikhail 454 N.W.2d 422 Minn. 1990
Maloney v. Fairview Community Hospital 451 N.W.2d 237 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
Maloney v. Fairview Community Hospital 451 N.W.2d 237 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
the supreme court held the time limits of Minn.Stat.
Henke v. Dunham 450 N.W.2d 595 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
Henke v. Dunham 450 N.W.2d 595 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
See Firoved v. General Motors Corp., 277 Minn. 278, 283 , *598 (supreme court concluded Minn.Stat.
In Re Marriage of McNattin v. McNattin 450 N.W.2d 169 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
In Re Marriage of McNattin v. McNattin 450 N.W.2d 169 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
State v. Batzer 448 N.W.2d 565 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
State v. Batzer 448 N.W.2d 565 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
the court defined substantive law as “that part of the law which creates, defines, and regulates rights, as opposed to ‘adjective or remedial’ law, which prescribes methods of enforcing the rights in obtaining redress for their invasion.” Id.
Moen v. Mikhail 447 N.W.2d 462 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Moen v. Mikhail 447 N.W.2d 462 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Sorenson v. St. Paul Ramsey Medical Center 444 N.W.2d 848 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Sorenson v. St. Paul Ramsey Medical Center 444 N.W.2d 848 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
(quoting Strauch v. Superior Court, 107 Cal.App.3d 45, 49 , 165 Cal.Rptr.