DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Cochrane v. Tudor Oaks Condominium Project, 529 N.W.2d 429.

74 citing documents.

  • Marriage of Schroeder v. Schroeder 658 N.W.2d 909 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
  • Marriage of Schroeder v. Schroeder 658 N.W.2d 909 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
    Project, (stating “lack of subject matter jurisdiction may be raised at any time, including for the first time on appeal”) (citations omitted), review denied (Minn. May 31, 1995).
  • Koes v. Advanced Design, Inc. 636 N.W.2d 352 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
  • Koes v. Advanced Design, Inc. 636 N.W.2d 352 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
    Project, review denied (Minn. May 31, 1995).
  • Weber v. Hvass 626 N.W.2d 426 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
  • Weber v. Hvass 626 N.W.2d 426 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
    Project, review denied (Minn. May 31, 1995)).
  • Stansell v. City of Northfield 618 N.W.2d 814 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
  • Stansell v. City of Northfield 618 N.W.2d 814 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
    Because the district court did not address standing, the Northfield residents question whether this issue is properly before the court, but “[standing may be raised at any time.” (citation omitted), review denied (Minn. May 31, 1995).
  • Herubin v. Finn 603 N.W.2d 133 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
  • Herubin v. Finn 603 N.W.2d 133 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
    review denied (Minn. May 31, 1995).
  • Marriage of Leffler v. Leffler 602 N.W.2d 420 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
  • Marriage of Leffler v. Leffler 602 N.W.2d 420 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
    review denied (Minn. May 31, 1995).
  • Professional Management Associates, Inc. v. Coss 598 N.W.2d 406 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
  • Professional Management Associates, Inc. v. Coss 598 N.W.2d 406 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
    Although the district court did not make a specific ruling on the issue, and only alluded to appellants' lack of standing in the memorandum attached to its order, "[s]tanding may be raised at any time.” review denied (May 31, 1995).
  • Board Order, Kells v. City of Rochester 597 N.W.2d 332 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
  • Rasmussen v. Sauer 597 N.W.2d 328 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
  • Rasmussen v. Sauer 597 N.W.2d 328 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
    review denied (Minn. May 31, 1995).
  • Board Order, Kells v. City of Rochester 597 N.W.2d 332 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
    We will assume B & F is making a subject matter jurisdiction argument because B & F disputes BWSR's authority to decide the issues in Kells’s appeal and does not dispute BWSR’s jurisdiction over B & (defining subject matter jurisdiction as authority to hear and decide particular actions and questions), review denied (Minn. May 31, 1995).
  • Ortiz v. Gavenda 574 N.W.2d 764 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
  • Ortiz v. Gavenda 574 N.W.2d 764 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
    796, 797 (1904) (when plaintiff corporation’s lack of capacity does not appear on face of complaint, defendant’s objection must be raised in the answer); -34 (Minn. *767 App.1995) (unlike subject matter jurisdiction and standing, the right to challenge capacity is waived if not timely asserted), review denied (Minn. May 31, 1995).
  • Stein v. O'BRIEN 565 N.W.2d 472 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
  • Stein v. O'BRIEN 565 N.W.2d 472 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
    (stating that “a potential litigant must allege injury in fact, or otherwise have a sufficient stake in the outcome”), review denied (Minn. May 31, 1995).
  • Patzner v. Schaefer 551 N.W.2d 736 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
  • Patzner v. Schaefer 551 N.W.2d 736 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
    596, 607 , 107 L.Ed.2d 603 (1990)); (stating that “[sjtanding may be raised at any time”), review denied (Minn. May 31, 1995).