Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Kastner v. Star Trails Ass'n, 646 N.W.2d 235.

59 citing documents.

A24-1652 Minn. Ct. App. 2025
See Kastner v. Star Trails Ass’n, –40 (Minn. 2002) (quotation omitted).
Aaron Olson, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
See Kastner v. Star Trails Ass’n, (“Whether the district court’s May 11 order denying respondent’s immunity-based summary judgment motion is immediately appealable requires construction of a procedural rule and is therefore a question of law subject to de novo review.” (citation omitted)).
Steve Quest v. Nicholas Robert Rekieta Minn. Ct. App. 2024
Steve Quest v. Nicholas Robert Rekieta Minn. Ct. App. 2024
See Kastner v. Star Trails Ass’n
Lisa Stone, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
9 Minnesota courts have adopted “the collateral order doctrine as a clear analytical framework to assess the immediate appealability of an order or judgment not specifically identified in the Rules of Civil Appellate Procedure.” Kastner v. Star Trails Ass’n
City of Minneapolis, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
Kastner v. Star Trails Ass’n
Cruz-Guzman v. State 916 N.W.2d 1 Minn. 2018
Cruz-Guzman v. State 916 N.W.2d 1 Minn. 2018
See Kastner v. Star Trails Ass'n , , 238 (Minn. 2002) (explaining that interlocutory appeal is available to review issues of subject matter jurisdiction and government immunity); Hunt v. Nev.
David Forster, et al., Respondents, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
App. P. 103.03(i); Kastner v. Star Trails Ass’n
Simon McCullough v. City of Red Wing Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Simon McCullough v. City of Red Wing Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Kastner v. Star Trials Ass’n, -40 (Minn. 2002); see Johnson v. Jones, 515 U.S. 304, 314, 115 S. Ct. 2151, 2157 (1995) (explaining that immunity issues are distinct from the merits of the action).
McCullough and Sons, Inc. v. City of Vadnais Heights, A14-1992 883 N.W.2d 580 Minn. 2016
McCullough and Sons, Inc. v. City of Vadnais Heights, A14-1992 883 N.W.2d 580 Minn. 2016
See Kastner v. Star Trails Ass’n, d 235, 238 (Minn. 2002).
Kie Vang, and v. Joshua Paul Forsman, Ely Chamber of Commerce, City of Ely, Minnesota State Colleges and … 883 N.W.2d 288 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Kie Vang, and v. Joshua Paul Forsman, Ely Chamber of Commerce, City of Ely, Minnesota State Colleges and … 883 N.W.2d 288 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Our supreme court adopted the federal collateral-order doctrine as the “analytical framework to assess the immediate appealability of an order or judgment not specifically identified in the Rules of Civil Appellate Procedure.” Kastner v. Star Trails Ass’n, d 235, 240 (Minn. 2002).
Jessica Mattson v. City of Rushford, Minnowa Construction, Inc., State of Minnesota Department of Transportation, Edwards and Kelcey, … Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Jessica Mattson v. City of Rushford, Minnowa Construction, Inc., State of Minnesota Department of Transportation, Edwards and Kelcey, … Minn. Ct. App. 2016
19 Trails Ass’n, n.5 (Minn. 2002).
Melinda M. Binkley, Trustee on behalf of the heirs and next of kin of Kirk T. Lloyd, II … 877 N.W.2d 547 Minn. 2016
Melinda M. Binkley, Trustee on behalf of the heirs and next of kin of Kirk T. Lloyd, II … 877 N.W.2d 547 Minn. 2016
1 Respondents filed an appeal of the district court’s order denying summary judgement, which the court of appeals accepted pursuant to our decision in Kastner v. Star Trails Ass’n
In re: Receivership of United States Installment Realty Company. Minn. Ct. App. 2015
In re: Receivership of United States Installment Realty Company. Minn. Ct. App. 2015
And, while 1893 joined in Burlington’s brief, both 1893 and Burlington continue to assert claims for damages and attorneys’ fees against the General Receiver in Texas.” 7 Best & Flanagan, LLP, see also Kastner v. Star Trails Ass’n, (explaining that an interlocutory appeal is available for review of orders denying motions to dismiss for lack of personal or subject-matter jurisdiction).
Katie Kaloustian v. Dakota Fence Co., Landscape Structures, Inc., Independent School District No. 152 of Clay County, and … Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Katie Kaloustian v. Dakota Fence Co., Landscape Structures, Inc., Independent School District No. 152 of Clay County, and … Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Kastner v. Star Trails Ass’n
Sterling State Bank v. Maas Commercial Properties, LLC Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Sterling State Bank v. Maas Commercial Properties, LLC Minn. Ct. App. 2014
In doing so, we “determine whether any genuine issues of material fact exist and whether the district court erred in its application of the law,” “constru[ing] the facts in the light most generally “not immediately appealable,” Kastner v. Star Trails Ass’n, they are within the scope of our review of an appealable final judgment when they “involv[e] the merits” of the judgment, Minn. R. Civ.
Poppler v. Wright Hennepin Cooperative Electric Ass'n 845 N.W.2d 168 Minn. 2014
Poppler v. Wright Hennepin Cooperative Electric Ass'n 845 N.W.2d 168 Minn. 2014
See Kastner v. Star Trails Ass’n
Doe 175 ex rel. Doe 175 v. Columbia Heights School District, ISD No. 13 842 N.W.2d 38 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Doe 175 ex rel. Doe 175 v. Columbia Heights School District, ISD No. 13 842 N.W.2d 38 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Fernow v. Gould 835 N.W.2d 8 Minn. 2013
Fernow v. Gould 835 N.W.2d 8 Minn. 2013
id that the denial of an immunity claim is “a final determination of a right separable from and collateral to rights asserted in the main action” and thus “is immediately ap-pealable notwithstanding the absence of a final judgment on the merits” because “it is [a] denial of a right not to stand trial at all — a right that is lost if the case is permitted to proceed.” Kastner v. Star Trails Ass’n, (discussing Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511 , 105 S.Ct.
Aon Corp. v. Haskins 817 N.W.2d 737 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
Aon Corp. v. Haskins 817 N.W.2d 737 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
See, e.g., Kastner v. Star Trails Ass’n, McGowan, d at 832 .
In re Individual 35W Bridge Litigation 806 N.W.2d 820 Minn. 2011
In re Individual 35W Bridge Litigation 806 N.W.2d 811 Minn. 2011
In re Individual 35W Bridge Litigation 806 N.W.2d 811 Minn. 2011
In re Individual 35W Bridge Litig., (adopting the collateral order doctrine).
In re Individual 35W Bridge Litigation 806 N.W.2d 820 Minn. 2011
See In re Individual 35W Bridge Litig., (opinion on consolidated appeal); (adopting collateral order doctrine).
State v. Ali 806 N.W.2d 45 Minn. 2011
State v. Ali 806 N.W.2d 45 Minn. 2011
Id.; see Kastner v. Star Trails Ass’n, (adopting the collateral order doctrine in civil cases).
Asian Women United of Minnesota v. Leiendecker 789 N.W.2d 688 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
Asian Women United of Minnesota v. Leiendecker 789 N.W.2d 688 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
See Kastner v. Star Trails Ass’n, (holding appeal available under collateral-order doctrine when the order being appealed (1) conclusively decides the question in dispute, (2) resolves an important issue that is completely separate from the merits of the action, and (3) is in effect unreviewable on appeal from a final judgment).
Middle-Snake-Tamarac Rivers Watershed District v. Stengrim 784 N.W.2d 834 Minn. 2010
Criticized Middle-Snake-Tamarac Rivers Watershed District v. Stengrim 784 N.W.2d 834 Minn. 2010
See Kastner v. Star Trails Ass’n, -39 (Minn.2002) (providing immediate appellate review for "an order denying an immunity-based motion for summary judgment”).
Pigs R US, LLC v. Compton Township 770 N.W.2d 212 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
Pigs R US, LLC v. Compton Township 770 N.W.2d 212 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
Kastner v. Star Trails Ass’n, 239-40 (Minn.2002).
State v. Dahlin 753 N.W.2d 300 Minn. 2008
State v. Dahlin 753 N.W.2d 300 Minn. 2008
See Kastner v. Star Trails Ass’n, , 240 n. 9 (Minn.2002).
St. Croix Development, LLC v. Gossman 735 N.W.2d 320 Minn. 2007
St. Croix Development, LLC v. Gossman 735 N.W.2d 320 Minn. 2007
See Kastner v. Star Trails Ass’n
In Re GlaxoSmithKline Plc 699 N.W.2d 749 Minn. 2005