Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Nodak Mutual Insurance Co. v. American Family Mutual Insurance Co., 604 N.W.2d 91.

23 citing documents.

A24-0478 Minn. Ct. App. 2024
Co., –94 (Minn. 2000) (footnotes omitted).
Carley Pesente v. Minnesota Life Insurance Company Minn. Ct. App. 2024
Carley Pesente v. Minnesota Life Insurance Company Minn. Ct. App. 2024
Co., (citing Myers v. Gov’t Emps.
Steve Quest v. Nicholas Robert Rekieta Minn. Ct. App. 2024
Steve Quest v. Nicholas Robert Rekieta Minn. Ct. App. 2024
Joy Trueblood, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
Co., (reasoning that because “the conflicting laws at issue are relatively clear in that there is no dispute that recovery is allowed under one but not the other, this factor favors neither state’s law”).
Explained Pamela Maslowski, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Distinguished American Family Mutual Insurance Company, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Co., which concerned a subrogation cla im following an accident involving a North Dakota insured and a Minnesota insured.
Kolberg-Pioneer, Inc. v. Belgrade Steel Tank Co. 823 N.W.2d 669 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
Kolberg-Pioneer, Inc. v. Belgrade Steel Tank Co. 823 N.W.2d 669 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
Co., -94 (Minn.2000); Jepson v. Gen.
Ziegelmann v. National Farmers Union Property & Casualty Companies 686 N.W.2d 563 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
Danielson v. National Supply Co. 670 N.W.2d 1 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
Danielson v. National Supply Co. 670 N.W.2d 1 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
Co., (concluding maintenance of interstate order was neutral because “both states have an equal interest as evidenced by the fact that both have laws directly pertaining to no-fault benefits recovery on the present facts”), with State Farm Mut.
Jacobson v. Universal Underwriters Insurance Group 645 N.W.2d 741 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
Jacobson v. Universal Underwriters Insurance Group 645 N.W.2d 741 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
Cargill, Inc. v. Evanston Insurance Co. 642 N.W.2d 80 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
Cargill, Inc. v. Evanston Insurance Co. 642 N.W.2d 80 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
Medtronic, Inc. v. Advanced Bionics Corp. 630 N.W.2d 438 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
Medtronic, Inc. v. Advanced Bionics Corp. 630 N.W.2d 438 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
Co., -94 (Minn.2000); Jepson v. General Cas.
Boatwright v. Budak 625 N.W.2d 483 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
Boatwright v. Budak 625 N.W.2d 483 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
Co., -94 (Minn.2000) (noting before choice-of-law analysis can be applied, court must determine a conflict exists between laws of two forums); Jepson v. General Cas.
State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Great West Casualty Co. 623 N.W.2d 894 Minn. 2001
State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Great West Casualty Co. 623 N.W.2d 894 Minn. 2001
Co., -4 (Minn.2000) (noting that a choice of law analysis was necessary where the interpretation of Minnesota and North Dakota laws was clear and there was an obvious outcome determinative conflict between the states’ laws).