Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Aufderhar v. Data Dispatch, Inc., 452 N.W.2d 648.

51 citing documents.

Advanced Engineering and Environmental Services, LLC, et al., Plaintiff, Minn. Ct. App. 2026
See Aufderhar v. Data Dispatch, Inc., –52 7 (Minn. 1990) (applying collateral estoppel to an attempt to relitigate issues decided in arbitration); Quam v. United Fire & Cas.
A23-0893 Minn. Ct. App. 2024
v. Graves, (citing Aufderhar v. Data Dispatch, Inc., ).
Farm Bureau Financial Services, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
Aufderhar v. Data Dispatch, Inc., Wacker, d at 349–50; Minn. Stat. § 572B.23(a)–(b) (2020).
David Brian Pemrick v. Lori Ann Bucher Minn. Ct. App. 2017
David Brian Pemrick v. Lori Ann Bucher Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Aufderhar v. Data Dispatch, Inc.
Jedidiah Dean Troxel v. State of Minnesota 875 N.W.2d 302 Minn. 2016
Seagate Technology, LLC v. Western Digital Corporation, Sining Mao Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Seagate Technology, LLC v. Western Digital Corporation, Sining Mao Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Aufderhar v. Data Dispatch, Inc., d 648, 651 (Minn. 1990) (affording “an arbitration award finality as to both facts and the law” for the purposes of triggering collateral estoppel).
State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v. Angela Mary Lennartson, Katie Foss 872 N.W.2d 524 Minn. 2015
State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v. Angela Mary Lennartson, Katie Foss 872 N.W.2d 524 Minn. 2015
1, which is not extinguished following a judicial proceeding, Aufderhar v. Data Dispatch, Inc.
State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, (A14-132), (A14-224) v. Angela Mary Lennartson, (A14-132), Katie Foss, (A14-224). 857 N.W.2d 713 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, (A14-132), (A14-224) v. Angela Mary Lennartson, (A14-132), Katie Foss, (A14-224). 857 N.W.2d 713 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Co., (holding that collateral estoppel may bind a party on an issue determined in prior litigation if the court makes a determination in a dispute over coverage); Aufderhar v. Data Dispatch, Inc., (holding that an insured was collaterally estopped from re- litigating damages in a civil action against a tortfeasor because the insured had already arbitrated his uninsured motorist benefits claim against his insurer); Butzer v. Allstate Ins.
State v. Castillo-Alvarez 820 N.W.2d 601 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
State v. Castillo-Alvarez 820 N.W.2d 601 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
see also Aufderhar v. Data Dispatch, Inc., (holding that Minnesota does not require mutuality of parties “as a predicate to the invocation of collateral estoppel,” provided the other elements of the defense have been met).
Zander v. State 703 N.W.2d 845 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
Zander v. State 703 N.W.2d 845 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
Aufderhar v. Data Dispatch, Inc.
Klinefelter v. Crum & Forster Insurance Co. 675 N.W.2d 330 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
Klinefelter v. Crum & Forster Insurance Co. 675 N.W.2d 330 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
Aufderhar v. Data Dispatch, Inc.
Independent School District No. 404 v. Castor 670 N.W.2d 758 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
Independent School District No. 404 v. Castor 670 N.W.2d 758 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
precludes parties from relit-igating issues which are identical to issues previously litigated and which were necessary and essential to the former resulting judgment.” Aufderhar v. Data Dispatch, Inc.
In Re Panel Case No. 17289 669 N.W.2d 898 Minn. 2003
In Re Panel Case No. 17289 669 N.W.2d 898 Minn. 2003
Collateral estoppel “precludes parties from relitigating issues which are identical to issues previously litigated and which [are] necessary and essential to the former resulting judgment.” Aufderhar v. Data Dispatch, Inc.
Onvoy, Inc. v. SHAL, LLC. 669 N.W.2d 344 Minn. 2003
Illinois Farmers Insurance Co. v. Reed 647 N.W.2d 553 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
Illinois Farmers Insurance Co. v. Reed 647 N.W.2d 553 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
And in Aufderhar v. Data Dispatch, Inc., -52 (Minn.1990), the supreme court held that collateral es-toppel was appropriate so long as the party to be estopped was present in both proceedings and had a full and fair opportunity to litigate the identical issue.
Mower County Human Services Ex Rel. Garcia v. Graves 611 N.W.2d 386 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
Mower County Human Services Ex Rel. Garcia v. Graves 611 N.W.2d 386 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
Aufderhar v. Data Dispatch, Inc.
State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Spartz 588 N.W.2d 173 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Spartz 588 N.W.2d 173 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
The supreme court has stated that “[m]ost courts have considered an arbitration award to constitute a ‘prior adjudication’ for purposes of triggering an estoppel.” Aufderhar v. Data Dispatch, Inc.
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
Co., -27 (Minn.1991) (applying collateral estoppel to prevent an injured driver, who already had received a jury verdict against the other driver, from relitigating the issue of damages in a subsequent proceeding to determine whether he may invoke underinsured motorist coverage); Aufderhar v. Data Dispatch, Inc., -53 (Minn.1990) (applying collateral estoppel to bar an injured driver, who already had arbitrated his uninsured motorist benefits claim against his insurer, from relitigating the amoun
Teaching License of Falgren v. State, Board of Teaching 545 N.W.2d 901 Minn. 1996
Teaching License of Falgren v. State, Board of Teaching 545 N.W.2d 901 Minn. 1996
Collateral estoppel “precludes parties from relitigating issues which are identical to issues previously litigated and which were necessary and essential to the former resulting judgment.” Aufderhar v. Data Dispatch, Inc.
Falgren v. STATE, BD. OF TEACHING 529 N.W.2d 382 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
Falgren v. STATE, BD. OF TEACHING 529 N.W.2d 382 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
Nonetheless, citing the Minnesota Supreme Court's decision in Aufderhar v. Data Dispatch, Inc., -54 (Minn.1990), the ALJ applied the doctrine of collateral estoppel because Falgren's "choice of arbitration constitutes a voluntary limiting of the review available."
Independent School District No. 279 v. Winkelman Building Corp. 530 N.W.2d 583 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
Independent School District No. 279 v. Winkelman Building Corp. 530 N.W.2d 583 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
See Aufderhar v. Data Dispatch, Inc., (“We * * * have afforded to an arbitration award finality as to both facts and the law”); Park Const. Co. v. Independent Sch.
Reinhardt v. Milwaukee Mutual Insurance Co. 524 N.W.2d 531 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
Reinhardt v. Milwaukee Mutual Insurance Co. 524 N.W.2d 531 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
Aufderhar v. Data Dispatch, Inc.
Haavisto v. Perpich 520 N.W.2d 727 Minn. 1994
Haavisto v. Perpich 520 N.W.2d 727 Minn. 1994
Oldham v. Pritchett, 599 F.2d 274, 279 (8th Cir.1979); Aufderhar v. Data Dispatch, Inc.
Haavisto v. Perpich 498 N.W.2d 746 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
Haavisto v. Perpich 498 N.W.2d 746 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
Aufderhar v. Data Dispatch, Inc., (citing Ellis v. Minneapolis Comm’n on Civil Rights, ).
Graham v. Special School District No. 1 462 N.W.2d 78 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
Graham v. Special School District No. 1 462 N.W.2d 78 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
Aufderhar v. Data Dispatch, Inc., (when amount of damages has been previously determined in arbitration proceeding, insured may be collaterally es-topped from relitigating issue in subsequent personal injury action).
Liberty Mut. Ins. v. AMERICAN FAMILY MUT. 463 N.W.2d 750 Minn. 1990
Liberty Mut. Ins. v. AMERICAN FAMILY MUT. 463 N.W.2d 750 Minn. 1990
See also Aufderhar v. Data Dispatch, Inc., and Johnson v. Consolidated Freightways, Inc.
Kersting v. Royal-Milbank Insurance 456 N.W.2d 270 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
Kersting v. Royal-Milbank Insurance 456 N.W.2d 270 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
The supreme court has consistently emphasized the finality of arbitration, see Aufderhar v. Data Dispatch, Inc., (“We * * * have afforded to an arbitration award finality as to both facts and the law”); Park Const. Co. v. Independent School District No. 32, 216 Minn. 27, 33 , (“[fjinality of decision is one of the objects of arbitration”), and this concern regarding finality is codified
Houlihan v. Fimon 454 N.W.2d 633 Minn. Ct. App. 1990