Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Sonenstahl v. L.E.L.S., Inc., 372 N.W.2d 1.

22 citing documents.

Joe Hoffman v. State Farm Fire and Casualty Minn. Ct. App. 2026
See Sonenstahl v. L.E.L.S., Inc.
In the Matter of a Petition for Clarification or Amendment of Appropriate Unit Minn. Ct. App. 2026
in similar manners”); Sonenstahl v. L.E.L.S., Inc., (acknowledging that federal court decisions may be persuasive when Minnesota caselaw has not addressed the topic).
William Salgat v. American Arbitration Association, Inc. Minn. Ct. App. 2023
Sonenstahl v. L.E.L.S., Inc.
Randall v. Paul 897 N.W.2d 842 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Randall v. Paul 897 N.W.2d 842 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
See Citizens for a Balanced City, d at 20 (stating that federal caselaw is persuasive authority and “should be afforded due deference”); Sonenstahl v. L.E.L.S., Inc., (“[F]ederal decisions may be persuasive where the Minnesota courts have not addressed a subject.”).
Pamela Maslowski v. Prospect Funding Partners LLC, Prospect Funding Holdings LLC 890 N.W.2d 756 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Pamela Maslowski v. Prospect Funding Partners LLC, Prospect Funding Holdings LLC 890 N.W.2d 756 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
See Sonenstahl v. L.E.L.S., Inc., (noting that federal decisions may be persuasive where Minnesota courts have not addressed a subject).
Community First Bank v. First United Funding, LLC 822 N.W.2d 306 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
Community First Bank v. First United Funding, LLC 822 N.W.2d 306 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
LLC, 242 F.3d 325, 331 (5th Cir.2001); Commodity Futures Trading Comm’n v. Topworth Int’l., Ltd., 205 F.3d 1107, 1115 (9th Cir. 1999); see also Sonenstahl v. L.E.L.S., Inc., (stating “federal decisions may be persuasive where the Minnesota courts have not addressed a particular subject”).
State v. McClenton 781 N.W.2d 181 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
State v. McClenton 781 N.W.2d 181 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
18, 1995); Sonenstahl v. L.E.L.S., Inc., (stating “federal decisions may be persuasive where the Minnesota courts have not addressed a subject”).
Allen v. Hennepin County 680 N.W.2d 560 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
Allen v. Hennepin County 680 N.W.2d 560 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
Sonenstahl v. L.E.L.S., Inc., (quotations omitted).
Brula v. St. Louis County 587 N.W.2d 859 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
Bruggeman v. Jerry's Enterprises, Inc. 583 N.W.2d 299 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
Bruggeman v. Jerry's Enterprises, Inc. 583 N.W.2d 299 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
See Sonenstahl v. L.E.L.S., Inc., (noting that foreign cases may be persuasive authority when Minnesota courts have not addressed a particular area of law).
Redburn v. Ferlitto 565 N.W.2d 35 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
Redburn v. Ferlitto 565 N.W.2d 35 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
5 See Sonenstahi v. L.E.L.S., Inc., (holding that foreign cases may be persuasive authority when Minnesota courts have not addressed particular area of law).
State ex rel. Ulland v. International Ass'n of Entrepreneurs of America 527 N.W.2d 133 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
State ex rel. Ulland v. International Ass'n of Entrepreneurs of America 527 N.W.2d 133 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
39 , 17 L.Ed.2d 56 (1966); Sonenstahl v. L.E.L.S., Inc., (“Although federal decisions may be persuasive where the Minnesota courts have not addressed a subject, in the present instance the Minnesota decisions are dispositive.”).
In Re the Proposed Suspension, Revocation or Non-Renewal of the Nursing Home Licenses of Parkway Manor Healthcare Center 448 N.W.2d 116 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
In Re the Proposed Suspension, Revocation or Non-Renewal of the Nursing Home Licenses of Parkway Manor Healthcare Center 448 N.W.2d 116 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Sonenstahl v. L.E.L.S., Inc.