Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Kellar v. VonHoltum, 568 N.W.2d 186.

21 citing documents.

Raymond Kvalvog, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
28, 1999); (malicious prosecution), rev. denied (Minn. Oct.
In Re: Henry Hickman, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
In Kellar v. VonHoltum, we concluded that any error in granting judgment on the pleadings was harmless because “it 14 [was] clear from the record that [the] claims would have properly been dismissed on summary judgment.” rev. denied (Minn. Oct.
Lauren Peterson, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
(d 607, 609 (Minn. App. 1986) , rev. denied (Minn. Oct.
James L. Lang, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
Brent A. Ristow, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
See, -90 (Minn. 1966) (civil-se rvice hearing reviewing city employee’s termination); 369 (Minn. App. 1998) (Board of Pardons hearing); 191-92 (Minn. App. 1997) (Department of Commerce bank-charter-application hearing), rev. denied (Minn. Oct.
In re the Marriage of: Janie Warren Berg, petitioner, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
“The trial judge has wide discretion to issue discovery orders and, absent clear abuse of that discretion, normally its order with respect thereto will not be disturbed.” ( quoting Shetka v. Kueppers, Kueppers, Von Feldt & Salmen, ), rev. denied (Minn. Oct.
Waymouth Farms, Inc., Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
review denied (Minn. Oct.
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
The tort of malicious prosecution has three elements: “(1) the action [must be] brought without probable cause or reasonable belief that the plaintiff would ultimately prevail on the merits; (2) the action must be instituted and prosecuted with malicious intent; and (3) the action must terminate in favor of the defendant.” rev. denied (Minn. Oct.
William J. Cavanagh v. Allen R. Arvig, Chris Mensing, individually and d/b/a Lakes Country Landscaping & Irrigation, Inc. Minn. Ct. App. 2014
William J. Cavanagh v. Allen R. Arvig, Chris Mensing, individually and d/b/a Lakes Country Landscaping & Irrigation, Inc. Minn. Ct. App. 2014
The elements of an abuse-of-process claim are (1) “the existence of an ulterior purpose” and (2) “the act of using the process to accomplish a result not within the scope of the proceedings in which it was issued, whether such result might otherwise be lawfully obtained or not.” review denied (Minn. Oct.
Leiendecker v. Asian Women United of Minnesota 834 N.W.2d 741 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
Leiendecker v. Asian Women United of Minnesota 834 N.W.2d 741 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
A. Abuse of process The essential elements of a cause of action for abuse of process are “the existence of an ulterior purpose and the act of using the process to accomplish a result not within the scope of the proceedings in which it was issued, whether such result might otherwise be lawfully obtained or not.” review denied (Minn. Oct.
Dunham v. Roer 708 N.W.2d 552 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
Dunham v. Roer 708 N.W.2d 552 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
review denied (Minn. Oct.
Kellar v. Von Holtum 605 N.W.2d 696 Minn. 2000
Kellar v. Von Holtum 605 N.W.2d 696 Minn. 2000
Kellar v. Von Holtum 583 N.W.2d 761 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
Kellar v. Von Holtum 583 N.W.2d 761 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
Kellar v. Von-Holtum,, revieio denied (Minn. Oct.
Cole v. Star Tribune 581 N.W.2d 364 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
Cole v. Star Tribune 581 N.W.2d 364 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
“[Ajbsolute privilege has been ex-fended to statements made in quasi-judicial proceedings.” review denied (Minn. Oct.