Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Sundberg v. Abbott, 423 N.W.2d 686.

39 citing documents.

LaPlant Properties, Inc., Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
It “has been calle d one of ‘the most amorphous [ concepts] in the entire 5 domain of public law,’” and it is “filled with ‘complexities and uncertainties.’” (alteration in original ) (quoting Flast v. Cohen, 392 U.S. 83, 99, 88 S. Ct. 1942, 1952 (1968)), review denied (Minn. June 29, 1988).
Donald Sealock, derivatively on behalf of St. Michael Mall, Inc., Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
The doctrine of res judicata provides that “[a] judgment on the merits 7 constitutes an absolute bar to a second suit for the same cause of action, and is conclusive between parties and privies, not only as to ev ery matter which was actually litigated, but also as to every matter which might have been litigated therein.” ( (emphasis removed)), review denied (Minn. June 29, 1988).
Busad Kheyre, et al., Appellants, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
court and not on the issues he wishes to have adjudicated.” Sundberg v. Abbott , (quoting Flast v. Cohen, 392 U.S. 83, 99, 88 S. Ct. 1942, 1952 (1968)), review denied (Minn. June 29, 1988).
Robert Kagel v. Christian Brackey, Kagel Acquisition Company, LLC Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Robert Kagel v. Christian Brackey, Kagel Acquisition Company, LLC Minn. Ct. App. 2016
review denied (Minn. June 29, 1988).
Anderson v. COUNTY OF LYON 784 N.W.2d 77 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
Anderson v. COUNTY OF LYON 784 N.W.2d 77 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
When a challenge to standing is raised, “[t]he essential question is ‘whether the litigant is entitled to have the court decide the merits of the dispute or of particular issues.’ ” (quoting Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490, 498 , 95 S.Ct.
Rukavina v. Pawlenty 684 N.W.2d 525 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
Rukavina v. Pawlenty 684 N.W.2d 525 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
review denied (Minn. June 29, 1988).
Schiff v. Griffin 639 N.W.2d 56 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
Schiff v. Griffin 639 N.W.2d 56 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
A determination of standing properly focuses on the party seeking to have a court decide the merits of a dispute “and not on the issues [the party] wishes to have adjudicated.” (quoting Flast v. Cohen, 392 U.S. 83, 99 , 88 S.Ct.
Hentges v. Minnesota Board of Water & Soil Resources 638 N.W.2d 441 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
Hentges v. Minnesota Board of Water & Soil Resources 638 N.W.2d 441 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
(a party must have standing in a dispute in order to have the court decide the merits of particular issues), review denied (Minn. June 29, 1988).
Rivera v. Ramsey County 615 N.W.2d 854 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
Rivera v. Ramsey County 615 N.W.2d 854 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
“[T]he fundamental aspect of standing is that it focuses on the party seeking to get his complaint before a * * court and not on the issues he wishes to have adjudicated.” (quoting Flast v. Cohen, 392 U.S. 83, 99 , 88 S.Ct.
Improvement of County Ditch No. 86, Branch 1, County of Blue Earth v. Phillips 614 N.W.2d 756 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
Improvement of County Ditch No. 86, Branch 1, County of Blue Earth v. Phillips 614 N.W.2d 756 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
(quoting Flast v. Cohen, 392 U.S. 83, 99 , 88 S.Ct.
Board Order, Kells v. City of Rochester 597 N.W.2d 332 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
Board Order, Kells v. City of Rochester 597 N.W.2d 332 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
Although B & F combines its arguments on standing with its arguments challenging BWSR's jurisdiction to hear this appeal, we address standing separately because standing " ‘focuses on the party seeking to get his complaint before a * * * court and not on the issues he wishes to have adjudicated.’" (quoting Flast v. Cohen, 392 U.S. 83, 99 , 88 S.Ct.
In re the Trust Created by Hill 509 N.W.2d 168 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
In re the Trust Created by Hill 509 N.W.2d 168 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
(emphasis and alteration in original) (quoting Flast v. Cohen, 392 U.S. 83, 99 , 88 S.Ct.
Deli v. Hasselmo 542 N.W.2d 649 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
Deli v. Hasselmo 542 N.W.2d 649 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
(emphasis deleted), review denied (Minn. June 29, 1988).
Goldberger v. Kaplan, Strangis & Kaplan, P.A. 534 N.W.2d 734 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
Goldberger v. Kaplan, Strangis & Kaplan, P.A. 534 N.W.2d 734 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
Cochrane v. Tudor Oaks Condominium Project 529 N.W.2d 429 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
Cochrane v. Tudor Oaks Condominium Project 529 N.W.2d 429 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
Sundberg v. Abbott , , 688 (Minn.App.
Gloria Dei Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod v. Gloria Dei Lutheran Church of Cold Spring 513 N.W.2d 488 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
Gloria Dei Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod v. Gloria Dei Lutheran Church of Cold Spring 513 N.W.2d 488 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
(emphasis and alteration in original) (quoting Flast v. Cohen 392 U.S. 83, 99 , 88 S.Ct.
Porta-Mix Concrete, Inc. v. First Insurance East Grand Forks 512 N.W.2d 119 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
Porta-Mix Concrete, Inc. v. First Insurance East Grand Forks 512 N.W.2d 119 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
(emphasis in original), pet.
Matter of Hill 509 N.W.2d 168 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
Matter of Hill 509 N.W.2d 168 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
(emphasis and alteration in original) (quoting Flast v. Cohen, 392 U.S. 83, 99 , 88 S.Ct.
Dorso Trailer Sales, Inc. v. American Body & Trailer, Inc. 482 N.W.2d 771 Minn. 1992
Dorso Trailer Sales, Inc. v. American Body & Trailer, Inc. 482 N.W.2d 771 Minn. 1992
Hennepin County v. Hanneman 472 N.W.2d 149 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
Hennepin County v. Hanneman 472 N.W.2d 149 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
A second suit on the same cause of action is barred “not only as to every matter which was actually litigated, but also as to every matter which might have been litigated therein.” (emphasis in original) (), pet.
Dorso Trailer Sales, Inc. v. American Body & Trailer, Inc. 464 N.W.2d 551 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
Dorso Trailer Sales, Inc. v. American Body & Trailer, Inc. 464 N.W.2d 551 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
In a memorandum accompanying the order, the court stated that it based its decision to dismiss the actions on two recent Minnesota cases, pet.