Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Nitz v. Nitz, 456 N.W.2d 450.

21 citing documents.

John Moore, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
Stern 1011 First Street South, LLC, et al., Respondents, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
P. 41.02(c); (“A dismissal based on statute of limitations grounds is a decision on the merits .
Donald Sealock, derivatively on behalf of St. Michael Mall, Inc., Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
For the doctrine to apply, an earlier claim must have been “decided between the same parties who were actual ly adversaries in the prior litigation.” (quotation omitted).
Jayson Dock, et al., Appellants, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Hauschildt, d at 837; Nitz v. Nitz , d 450, 452 (Minn. App. 1990); see, e.g., Dollar Travel Agency, Inc. v. Nw.
Nelson v. Short-Elliot-Hendrickson, Inc. 716 N.W.2d 394 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
Nelson v. Short-Elliot-Hendrickson, Inc. 716 N.W.2d 394 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
When determining whether two suits involve the same claims, we inquire whether both claims arise from the “same operative nucleus of facts.” (quotation omitted).
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
744 n. 1 (Minn.1994) (res judicata prevents parties from splitting claims into more than one lawsuit and precludes further litigation of the same claim); Buchanan v. Dain Bosworth, Inc., -10 (Minn.App.1991) (res judicata prevents splitting of claims unless parties have agreed, or defendant has acquiesced, to claim splitting), review denied (Minn. July 24, 1991); (res judicata restricted party *489 from splitting her claims and bringing successive suits); (holding that “[r]es judicata as merger o
State v. Henning 644 N.W.2d 500 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
State v. Henning 644 N.W.2d 500 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
Paulos v. Johnson 597 N.W.2d 316 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
Paulos v. Johnson 597 N.W.2d 316 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
Dorso Trailer Sales, Inc. v. American Body & Trailer, Inc., -74 (Minn.1992); (noting policy reasons underlying res judicata include avoiding unnecessary litigation, judicial economy, and establishing certainty in legal decisions), review denied (Minn. July 28,¾1988).
Sautter v. Interstate Power Co. 567 N.W.2d 755 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
Sautter v. Interstate Power Co. 567 N.W.2d 755 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
and Austin v. Super Valu Stores, Inc., 31 F.3d 615 (8th Cir.1994), in support of their position.
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
Pike v. Gunyou 488 N.W.2d 298 Minn. Ct. App. 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 change in [the] theory [of liability] cannot be used to avoid res judicata.”
Simington v. Minnesota Veterans Home 464 N.W.2d 529 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
Simington v. Minnesota Veterans Home 464 N.W.2d 529 Minn. Ct. App. 1990

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by