Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite AFSCME Council 96 v. Arrowhead Regional Corrections Board, 356 N.W.2d 295.

89 citing documents.

Kenneth Zepeda, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2024
Voyageurs Retreat Community Association, et al., Appellants, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
Bd., (recognizing that collateral estoppel should be “qualified or rejected when [its] application w ould contravene an overriding public policy” (quotation omitted)).
John Schulz, et al., Respondents, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
A20-0501 Minn. Ct. App. 2020
(stating that collateral estoppel and res judicata “are qualified or rejected when their application would contravene an overriding public policy ” (quotation omitted)).
James Vernon Larsen, et al., Appellants, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
In the Matter of the Civil Commitment of: Michael Dale Benson. Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Bd., d 295, 299 (Minn. 1984); (addressing res judicata); Falgren v. State Bd.
In re: Estate of Loretta M. Chisholm, Decedent. Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Bd., (stating res judicata should not override public policy) .
In re the Arbitration of: Katie Altenburg o/b/o Ian Altenburg, claimant, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
d 295, 299 (Minn. 1984).
Ruth Unger v. AAA Insurance Company Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Ruth Unger v. AAA Insurance Company Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Bd., see Minn. Stat. § 572B.23 (2014) (listing the statutorily available reasons to vacate an arbitration award).
In the Matter of the Welfare of the Children of: K. E. L. and J. L. W., Parents. Minn. Ct. App. 2014
In the Matter of the Welfare of the Children of: K. E. L. and J. L. W., Parents. Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Bd., (stating in addition to the four-factor test that “a court applying collateral estoppel must be convinced that its application is fair”); (holding that res judicata and co
City of Saint Paul v. Eldredge 800 N.W.2d 643 Minn. 2011
Phillips v. Dolphin 776 N.W.2d 755 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
Phillips v. Dolphin 776 N.W.2d 755 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
Bd., -300 (Minn.1984); accord Hunter, Keith Indus.
State v. Lemmer 716 N.W.2d 657 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
State v. Lemmer 716 N.W.2d 657 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
Bd., (stating that collateral estoppel is not rigidly applied and “is qualified or rejected when [its] application would contravene an overriding public policy”) (quoting Tipler v. E.I.
Wolfer v. Microboards Manufacturing, LLC 654 N.W.2d 360 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
Wolfer v. Microboards Manufacturing, LLC 654 N.W.2d 360 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
AFSCME Council 96 v. Arrowhead Regional Corrections Bd., -300 (Minn.1984).
Wilson v. Commissioner of Revenue 619 N.W.2d 194 Minn. 2000
Wilson v. Commissioner of Revenue 619 N.W.2d 194 Minn. 2000
See AFSCME Council 96 v. Arrowhead Reg’l Corrections Bd., see also Brown v. Felsen, 442 U.S. 127, 132 , 99 S.Ct.
Liberty Mutual Insurance Co. v. Sankey 605 N.W.2d 411 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
Liberty Mutual Insurance Co. v. Sankey 605 N.W.2d 411 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
§ 572.19] and not because the court disagrees with the decision on the merits.” AFSCME Council 96 v. Arrowhead Reg’l Corrections Bd., -300 (Minn.1984).
Aaron v. Illinois Farmers Insurance Group 590 N.W.2d 667 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
Aaron v. Illinois Farmers Insurance Group 590 N.W.2d 667 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
AFSCME Council 96 v. Arrowhead Reg’l Corrections Bd.
Brula v. St. Louis County 587 N.W.2d 859 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
Brula v. St. Louis County 587 N.W.2d 859 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
AFSCME Council 96 v. Arrowhead Reg’l Connections Bd.
Manson v. Dain Bosworth Inc. 623 N.W.2d 610 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
Manson v. Dain Bosworth Inc. 623 N.W.2d 610 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
EEC Property Co. v. Kaplan 578 N.W.2d 381 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
EEC Property Co. v. Kaplan 578 N.W.2d 381 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
Bd., -300 (Minn. 1984); Minn.Stat.
In Re the Arbitration Between Hunter, Keith Industries, Inc. v. Piper Capital Management Inc. 575 N.W.2d 850 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
In Re the Arbitration Between Hunter, Keith Industries, Inc. v. Piper Capital Management Inc. 575 N.W.2d 850 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
AFSCME Council 96 v. Arrowhead Reg’l Corrections Bd., -300 (Minn.1984).
Butzer v. Allstate Insurance Co. 567 N.W.2d 534 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
Butzer v. Allstate Insurance Co. 567 N.W.2d 534 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
With these considerations in mind, appellants note that collateral estoppel is a “flexible doctrine” that is “not rigidly applied,” Johnson, d at 613-14 , and that a court should reject the doctrine when its “application would contravene an overriding public policy,” AFSCME Council 96 v. Arroiuhead Reg’l Corrections Bd., (citation omitted).
Tharalson v. Hennepin Parks 551 N.W.2d 510 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
Tharalson v. Hennepin Parks 551 N.W.2d 510 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
AFSCME Council 96 v. Arrowhead Regional Corrections Bd.
Johnson v. County of Anoka 536 N.W.2d 336 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
Johnson v. County of Anoka 536 N.W.2d 336 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
AFSCME Council 96 v. Arrowhead Regional Corrections Bd.
Rw v. Tf 528 N.W.2d 869 Minn. 1995
R.W. v. T.F. 528 N.W.2d 869 Minn. 1995
Rw v. Tf 528 N.W.2d 869 Minn. 1995
See Johnson v. Consolidated Freightways, Inc., -14 (Minn.1988); AFSCME Council 96 v. Arrowhead Regional Corrections Bd.
R.W. v. T.F. 528 N.W.2d 869 Minn. 1995
See Johnson v. Consolidated Freightways, Inc., -14 (Minn.1988); AFSCME Council 96 v. Arrowhead Regional Corrections Bd.
AFSCME Council No. 14, Local Union No. 517 v. Washington County Board of Commissioners 527 N.W.2d 127 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
AFSCME Council No. 14, Local Union No. 517 v. Washington County Board of Commissioners 527 N.W.2d 127 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
Kennedy, Matthews, Landis, Healy & Pecora, Inc. v. Young 524 N.W.2d 752 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
Kennedy, Matthews, Landis, Healy & Pecora, Inc. v. Young 524 N.W.2d 752 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
Co., (quoting AFSCME Council 96 v. Arrowhead Regional Corrections Bd., ).
American Federation of State, County & Municipal Employees, District Council No. 14, Local Union No. 551 v. Minneapolis … 520 N.W.2d 453 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
American Federation of State, County & Municipal Employees, District Council No. 14, Local Union No. 551 v. Minneapolis … 520 N.W.2d 453 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
Rw v. Tf 510 N.W.2d 231 Minn. Ct. App. 1994