Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Janssen v. Best & Flanagan, 662 N.W.2d 876.

27 citing documents.

John Donahue, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2026
9 “Derivative suits allow shareholders to bring suit against wrongdoers on behalf of the corporation, and force liable parties to compensate the corporation for injuries so caused.” Janssen v. Best & Flanagan, see Minn. Stat. § 322C.0902 (2024) (allowing LLC members to bring derivative suits “to enforce a right of a limited liability company”); see also Minn. R. Civ.
Cyrenus Rubald, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
Janssen v. Best & Flanagan
Serene E. Warren, as beneficiary of the 2011 Arizona NG Trust 102, 8008 Meadow Trust 102, 2011 Lafayette … Minn. Ct. App. 2025
Janssen v. Best & Flanagan , (“Derivative suits allow shareholders to bring suit against wrongdoers on behalf of the corporation, and force liable parties to compensate the corporation for injuries so caused.”).
RSS Fridley, LLC, a Minnesota limited liability company, et al., Appellants, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
See Janssen v. Best & Flanagan, (“[C]ourts are ill-equipped to judge the wisdom of business ventures.”).
Kathryn Ward Blum, et al., Appellants, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
Janssen v. Best & Flanagan
Minnesota Sands, LLC, Minn. 2020
See Janssen v. Best & Flanagan, (“[C]ourts are ill-equipped to judge the wisdom of business ventures and have been reticent to replace a well- meaning decision by a corporate board with their own.”).
Carmen A. Dulhanty, on her own behalf and on behalf of those similarly situated, Appellant, Fintegra Holdings, LLC, … Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Janssen v. Best & Flanagan
In re Medtronic, Inc. Shareholder Litigation 900 N.W.2d 401 Minn. 2017
In re Medtronic, Inc. Shareholder Litigation 900 N.W.2d 401 Minn. 2017
Inc. S’holder Derivative Litig., (explaining that a shareholder bringing a derivative claim “step[s] into the corporation’s shoes” to “bring suit against wrongdoers on behalf of the corporation” (citations and internal quotation marks omitted)); Janssen v. Best & Flanagan, (“Derivative suits allow shareholders to bring suit against wrongdoers on behalf of the corporation, and force liable parties to compensate the corporation for injuries so caused.”).
Blum v. Thompson 901 N.W.2d 203 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Blum v. Thompson 901 N.W.2d 203 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Janssen v. Best & Flanagan
Reichel Investments, L.P. v. Craig A. Reichel Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Reichel Investments, L.P. v. Craig A. Reichel Minn. Ct. App. 2016
“Derivative suits allow shareholders to bring suit against wrongdoers on behalf of the corporation, and force liable parties to compensate the corporation for injuries so caused.” Janssen v. Best & Flanagan
James L. Mandel v. Multiband Corporation Minn. Ct. App. 2016
James L. Mandel v. Multiband Corporation Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Inc. S’holder Derivative Litig., Janssen v. Best & Flanagan, (noting that the “business judgment rule was developed by state and federal courts to protect boards of directors against shareholder claims that the board made unprofitable business decisions”).
Blohm v. Kelly 765 N.W.2d 147 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
Blohm v. Kelly 765 N.W.2d 147 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
Janssen v. Best & Flanagan
International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local No. 292 v. City of St. Cloud 765 N.W.2d 64 Minn. 2009
International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local No. 292 v. City of St. Cloud 765 N.W.2d 64 Minn. 2009
See, e.g., Janssen v. Best & Flanagan, (holding that "a corporation is deemed to possess all the powers of a natural person except those powers which are specifically forbidden to such corporations by the law” and that a corporation is seen by the law as "an artificial person”); (stating t
In Re UnitedHealth Group Inc. Shareholder Derivative Litigation 754 N.W.2d 544 Minn. 2008
In Re UnitedHealth Group Inc. Shareholder Derivative Litigation 754 N.W.2d 544 Minn. 2008
“Derivative suits allow shareholders to bring suit against wrongdoers on behalf of the corporation, and force liable parties to compensate the corporation for injuries so caused.” Janssen v. Best & Flanagan
Christians v. Grant Thornton, LLP 733 N.W.2d 803 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
Christians v. Grant Thornton, LLP 733 N.W.2d 803 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
Janssen v. Best & Flanagan, -82 (Minn.2003) (discussing business-judgment rule).
Harrison Ex Rel. Harrison v. Harrison 733 N.W.2d 451 Minn. 2007
Harrison Ex Rel. Harrison v. Harrison 733 N.W.2d 451 Minn. 2007
Janssen v. Best & Flanagan, LLP 704 N.W.2d 759 Minn. 2005
Janssen v. Best & Flanagan, LLP 704 N.W.2d 759 Minn. 2005
*761 The facts concerning Janssen’s shareholder’s derivative canse of action on behalf of the Minneapolis Police Relief Association (MPRA) against Best & Flanagan are fully set forth in our earlier opinion in Janssen v. Best & Flanagan, (Janssen I).