Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Roseberg v. Steen, 363 N.W.2d 102.

29 citing documents.

Town of Denmark, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
For collateral estoppel to apply, the issue must be one that was “actually litigated, determined by, and essential to a previous judgment.”
Brown-Wilbert, Inc. v. Copeland Buhl & Co., P.L.L.P. 715 N.W.2d 484 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
Brown-Wilbert, Inc. v. Copeland Buhl & Co., P.L.L.P. 715 N.W.2d 484 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
“Minnesota law recognizes two principles of the doctrine of res judicata: (1) merger or bar, and (2) collateral estop-pel.”
In Re Estate of Handy 672 N.W.2d 214 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
In Re Estate of Handy 672 N.W.2d 214 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
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
Michels v. Kozitza 610 N.W.2d 368 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
Michels v. Kozitza 610 N.W.2d 368 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
Collateral estoppel “operates only as to matters actually litigated, determined by, and essential to a previous judgment.”
Matter of Trusts Created by Hormel 504 N.W.2d 505 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
Matter of Trusts Created by Hormel 504 N.W.2d 505 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
-09 (Minn.1978) (where the previous court orders were summary orders unaccompanied by memoranda and the judgment might have been based upon one or more of several grounds but did not expressly rely upon any one of them, none of the possible issues is conclusively established under the doctrine of collateral es-toppel); (no preclusion of issue where previous court order did not state a conclusion on that issue and it was not known whether the issue was even raised or litigated).
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
Riverbluff Development Co. v. Insurance Co. of North America 412 N.W.2d 792 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Riverbluff Development Co. v. Insurance Co. of North America 412 N.W.2d 792 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Hofstad v. Hargest 412 N.W.2d 5 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Hofstad v. Hargest 412 N.W.2d 5 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Roberts v. Flanagan 410 N.W.2d 884 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Roberts v. Flanagan 410 N.W.2d 884 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Hollenkamp v. Peters 410 N.W.2d 427 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Hollenkamp v. Peters 410 N.W.2d 427 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Waseca Mutual Insurance Co. v. Swanson 403 N.W.2d 678 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Waseca Mutual Insurance Co. v. Swanson 403 N.W.2d 678 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
(citing Howe v. Nelson, 271 Minn. 296, 301 , ).
Marriage of Zickefoose v. Muntean 399 N.W.2d 178 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Marriage of Zickefoose v. Muntean 399 N.W.2d 178 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Powell v. City of Clearwater 389 N.W.2d 206 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Powell v. City of Clearwater 389 N.W.2d 206 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Application of Hofstad 376 N.W.2d 698 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Application of Hofstad 376 N.W.2d 698 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
*701 (citations omitted).