Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Anderson v. Werner Continental, Inc., 363 N.W.2d 332.

27 citing documents.

Jayson Dock, et al., Appellants, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Two causes of action involve the same set of factual circumstances when “the same operative nucleus of facts is alleged in su pport of the claims.” Anderson v. Werner Cont’l., Inc., d 332, 335 (Minn. App. 1985), review denied (Minn. June 24, 1985); see Hauschildt, d at 840 (describing a claim or cause of action as “a group of operative facts giving rise to one or more bases for suing” (quotation omitted)).
SMA Services, Inc. v. Weaver 632 N.W.2d 770 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
SMA Services, Inc. v. Weaver 632 N.W.2d 770 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
4, 1991); see also Anderson v. Werner Continental, Inc., (holding that claims are identical “if the same operative nucleus of facts is alleged in support of the claims”), review denied (Minn. June 24, 1985).
Paulos v. Johnson 597 N.W.2d 316 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
Paulos v. Johnson 597 N.W.2d 316 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
Anderson v. Werner Continental, Inc., review denied (Minn. June 24, 1985); see Amalgamated Meat Cutters & Butcher Workmen v. Club 167, Inc., 295 Minn. 573, 575 , (noting test to determine if two claims are identical is whether same evidence will support both judgments); see, e.g., Antonson v. Ekvall, 29
Buchanan v. Dain Bosworth Inc. 469 N.W.2d 508 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
Buchanan v. Dain Bosworth Inc. 469 N.W.2d 508 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
Myers Through Myers v. Price 463 N.W.2d 773 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
Myers Through Myers v. Price 463 N.W.2d 773 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
Beutz, d at 533 ; see also Anderson v. Werner Continental, Inc., (claims are identical “if the same operative nucleus of facts is alleged in support of the claims”), pet.
Surf and Sand, Inc. v. Gardebring 457 N.W.2d 782 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
Surf and Sand, Inc. v. Gardebring 457 N.W.2d 782 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
129 (D.Minn.1983), cited in Anderson v. Werner Continental, Inc., pet.
Nitz v. Nitz 456 N.W.2d 450 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
Nitz v. Nitz 456 N.W.2d 450 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
Appellant argues Nitz II involves different claims than those presented in Nitz I. A test for determining whether two successive suits involve the same claims is to inquire whether both actions arise from the “same operative nucleus of facts.” Anderson v. Werner Continental, Inc., pet.
Beutz v. A.O. Smith Harvestore Products, Inc. 431 N.W.2d 528 Minn. 1988
Beutz v. A.O. Smith Harvestore Products, Inc. 431 N.W.2d 528 Minn. 1988
Sunrise Electric, Inc. v. Zachman Homes, Inc. 425 N.W.2d 848 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Sunrise Electric, Inc. v. Zachman Homes, Inc. 425 N.W.2d 848 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
this court applied the test of “whether the primary right and duty and the delict or wrong combined are the same in each action.” And in Anderson v. Werner Continental, Inc., , 335 *852 (Minn.Ct.App.1985), pet.
Wessling v. Johnson 424 N.W.2d 795 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Wessling v. Johnson 424 N.W.2d 795 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Anderson v. Werner Continental, Inc., (Minn.Ct.App.
Sundberg v. Abbott 423 N.W.2d 686 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Sundberg v. Abbott 423 N.W.2d 686 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Anderson v. Werner Continental, Inc., pet.
Beutz v. A.O. Smith Harvestore Products, Inc. 416 N.W.2d 482 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Beutz v. A.O. Smith Harvestore Products, Inc. 416 N.W.2d 482 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Anderson v. Werner Continental, Inc., pet.
Roberts v. Flanagan 410 N.W.2d 884 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Roberts v. Flanagan 410 N.W.2d 884 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
In Anderson v. Werner Continental, Inc., this court established the “same transaction” test, which is met “if the same operative nucleus of facts is alleged in support of the claims.” Id.
Johansen v. Production Credit Ass'n of Marshall-Ivanhoe 378 N.W.2d 59 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Johansen v. Production Credit Ass'n of Marshall-Ivanhoe 378 N.W.2d 59 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Rhodes v. Jones, 351 F.2d 884, 889 (8th Cir.1965); Anderson v. Werner Continental, Inc.