Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Marshall v. Inn on Madeline Island, 610 N.W.2d 670.

22 citing documents.

Shawn Peters, Respondent, vs. Samsung SDI Co., Ltd., a Korean Corporation, Appellant, Samsung SDI America, Inc., a ... Minn. Ct. App. 2025
Shawn Peters, Respondent, vs. Samsung SDI Co., Ltd., a Korean Corporation, Appellant, Samsung SDI America, Inc., a ... Minn. Ct. App. 2025
Second, SDI is correct that Minnesota has personal jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant who forms a contract with a Minnesota entity but “only where the dispute involves the contract.”
Gopher Mats, LLC d/b/a Viking Mat Company, Cross-Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
-76 (Minn. App. 2000) (“When a defendant deliberately engages in significant activities in a state or creates continuing obligations between itself and residents of the state, the defendant purposefully avails itself of the protections of the law, as required to support the exercise of personal jurisdiction und
Jennifer A. Hindermann, as executrix of the Estate of David K. Hindermann and as beneficiary of the Revocable … Minn. Ct. App. 2024
- 76 (Minn. App. 2000) (“When a defendant deliberately engages in significant activities in a state or creates continuing obligations between itself and residents of the state, the defendant purposefully avails itself of the protections of the law, as requir ed to support the exercise of personal jurisdiction
State of Minnesota, by its Attorney General, Keith Ellison, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
Health Care Service Corporation, et al., Respondents, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
Marshall v. Inn on Madeline Island , -76 (Minn. App. 2000) (“When a defendant deliberately engages in significant activities in a state or creates continuing obligations between itself and residents of the state, the defendant purposefully avails itself of the protections of the law, as required to support the exercise of personal jurisdiction und
William H. Davis, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
(stating that “if the personal jurisdiction requirements of the federal constitution are met, the requirements of the long-arm statute will necessarily be met also” (quotation omitted)).
State of Minnesota, by its Attorney General, Lori Swanson, et al., Respondents, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
fendant must have “ purposefully established ‘minimum contacts’ with a forum state such that maintaining jurisdiction there 8 does not offend ‘traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.’” (citing Int’l Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310, 316, 66 S. Ct. 154, 158 (1945); Marshall v. Inn of Madeline Island , -74 (Minn. App. 2000)), review granted (July 17, 2018).
Rebecca Minkoff Apparel, LLC, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
-76 (Minn. App. 2000) (stating that if a nonresident “creates continuing obligations” between itself and a Minnesota resident, that purposeful act supports the exercise of personal jurisdiction), with KSTP, d at 924 (stating that an “isolated” commercial transaction, such as a single sale of goods, wil
Bandemer v. Ford Motor Co. 913 N.W.2d 710 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Bandemer v. Ford Motor Co. 913 N.W.2d 710 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
95 (1945) ; Marshall v. Inn of Madeline Island , , 673-74 (Minn. App. 2000).
Droel, PLLC, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
See, (concluding that an inn’s Minnesota advertisements did not create specific ju risdiction because th ere was no connection between the cause of action and those contacts).
Butler v. JLA Industrial Equipment, Inc. 845 N.W.2d 834 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Butler v. JLA Industrial Equipment, Inc. 845 N.W.2d 834 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Curtis v. Altria Group, Inc. 792 N.W.2d 836 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
Curtis v. Altria Group, Inc. 792 N.W.2d 836 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
JL Schwieters Construction, Inc. v. Goldridge Construction, Inc. 788 N.W.2d 529 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
JL Schwieters Construction, Inc. v. Goldridge Construction, Inc. 788 N.W.2d 529 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
Lorix v. Crompton Corp. 680 N.W.2d 574 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
Lorix v. Crompton Corp. 680 N.W.2d 574 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
Marshall v. Inn on Madeline Island 631 N.W.2d 113 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
Marshall v. Inn on Madeline Island 631 N.W.2d 113 Minn. Ct. App. 2001