Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Emme v. C.O.M.B., Inc., 418 N.W.2d 176.

103 citing documents.

Gordon v. Microsoft Corp. 645 N.W.2d 393 Minn. 2002
Jostens, Inc. v. Federated Mutual Insurance Co. 612 N.W.2d 878 Minn. 2000
Jostens, Inc. v. Federated Mutual Insurance Co. 612 N.W.2d 878 Minn. 2000
The court then cited this court’s decision in Emme v. C.O.M.B., Inc., as providing a balancing test for determining whether issues are “important” under Rule 103.03(h).
Vezina v. Best Western Inn, Maplewood 601 N.W.2d 191 Minn. 1999
Vezina v. Best Western Inn, Maplewood 601 N.W.2d 191 Minn. 1999
-80 (Minn.1988); F & H Investment Co. v. Sachman-Gilliland Corp., 305 Minn. 155, 158
Cole v. Star Tribune 581 N.W.2d 364 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
Cole v. Star Tribune 581 N.W.2d 364 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
3 (Supp.1997) (allowing imposition of sanctions if party’s argument to alter or extend existing law is frivolous); (even if an issue *371 of first impression, certification of a question is justified only if there are substantial grounds for differences of opinion on the issue).
Jacka v. Coca-Cola Bottling Co. 580 N.W.2d 27 Minn. 1998
Jacka v. Coca-Cola Bottling Co. 580 N.W.2d 27 Minn. 1998
1; Emme v. C.O.M.B., Inc., -80 (Minn.1988).
Riedel v. Goodwin 574 N.W.2d 753 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
Riedel v. Goodwin 574 N.W.2d 753 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
Kowler Associates v. Ross 544 N.W.2d 800 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
Kowler Associates v. Ross 544 N.W.2d 800 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
See Emme v. C.O.M.B., Inc., (discretionary review should be limited to rare case presenting compelling reason for immediate appeal); Miyoi , 293 Minn, at 378, d at 310 (discretionary review denied where nonfinal arbitration order did not expose aggrieved party to irreparable damage).
Malmin v. Minnesota Mutual Fire & Casualty Co. 541 N.W.2d 4 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
Malmin v. Minnesota Mutual Fire & Casualty Co. 541 N.W.2d 4 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
Foley v. Honeywell, Inc., (citing Emme v. C.O.M.B., Inc., -80 (Minn.1988)).
O'Shaughnessy v. Smuckler Corp. 543 N.W.2d 99 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
O'Shaughnessy v. Smuckler Corp. 543 N.W.2d 99 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
105.01; see also Emme v. C.O.M.B., Inc.
Larson v. New Richland Care Center 538 N.W.2d 915 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
State v. Nodes 538 N.W.2d 158 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
State v. Nodes 538 N.W.2d 158 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
See Foley v. Honeywell, Inc., (accepting certification of civil question as important because its resolution will have statewide impact); see Emme v. C.O.M.B., Inc., -80 (Minn.1988) (defining civil question as doubtful if no controlling precedent exists, or if it is a question of first impression with substantial ground for a difference of opinion).
Larson v. New Richland Care Center 538 N.W.2d 915 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
Emme v. C.O.M.B., Inc., -80 (Minn.1988); , 462 n. 1 (Minn.1977).
Carter v. Cole 526 N.W.2d 209 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
Carter v. Cole 526 N.W.2d 209 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
Minnesota does not favor interlocutory appeals and our appellate courts have “consistently dismissed appeals from orders that did not finally determine either the action or some positive legal right of the appellant relating to such action.” Emme v. C.O.M.B., Inc., (citations omitted).
Wagener v. McDonald 509 N.W.2d 188 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
Wagener v. McDonald 509 N.W.2d 188 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
Marriage of Erickson v. Erickson 506 N.W.2d 679 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
Marriage of Erickson v. Erickson 506 N.W.2d 679 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
Rasivong v. Lakewood Community College 504 N.W.2d 778 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
Rasivong v. Lakewood Community College 504 N.W.2d 778 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
See Emme v. C.O.M.B., Inc., (policy behind requiring final judgment before appeal is not served by allowing appeal of interlocutory order unless reversal would obviate need for trial); McGuire, d at 614 n. 11 (in interests of judicial efficiency, reviewing court may consider issue not before it to resolve all controvers
Foley v. Honeywell, Inc. 488 N.W.2d 268 Minn. 1992
Foley v. Honeywell, Inc. 488 N.W.2d 268 Minn. 1992
State v. Stewart 486 N.W.2d 444 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
State v. Stewart 486 N.W.2d 444 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
Emme v. C.O.M.B., Inc., -80 (Minn.1988).
Coons v. St. Paul Companies 486 N.W.2d 771 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
Coons v. St. Paul Companies 486 N.W.2d 771 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
The importance of a question “increases with the probability that resolution of the question will have statewide impact and the probability of reversal.” Emme v. C.O.M.B., Inc.
Muehlstedt v. City of Lino Lakes 466 N.W.2d 56 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
Muehlstedt v. City of Lino Lakes 466 N.W.2d 56 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
See generally Emme v. C.O. M.B., Inc.
Proprietors Insurance Co. v. Cohen 451 N.W.2d 904 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
Proprietors Insurance Co. v. Cohen 451 N.W.2d 904 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
The Minnesota Supreme Court has recently emphasized that “not every vexing question is important and doubtful.” Emme v. C.O.M.B., Inc.
Krmpotich v. City of Duluth 449 N.W.2d 507 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Krmpotich v. City of Duluth 449 N.W.2d 507 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
In Re Estate of Opsahl 440 N.W.2d 185 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
In Re Estate of Opsahl 440 N.W.2d 185 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
103.04; see also Emme v. C.O.M.B., Inc., (appeals should not be brought or considered on piecemeal basis).
National City Bank of Minneapolis v. Lundgren 435 N.W.2d 588 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
National City Bank of Minneapolis v. Lundgren 435 N.W.2d 588 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
First National Bank of Windom v. Rosenkranz 430 N.W.2d 267 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
First National Bank of Windom v. Rosenkranz 430 N.W.2d 267 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
See generally Emme v. C.O.M.B., Inc.
King v. Watonwan Farm Service Co. 430 N.W.2d 24 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
King v. Watonwan Farm Service Co. 430 N.W.2d 24 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Massie v. City of Duluth 425 N.W.2d 858 Minn. Ct. App. 1988