Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Loo v. Loo, 520 N.W.2d 740.

99 citing documents.

In re the Marriage of: Rosalyn LaRae Johnson, f/k/a Rosalyn LaRae Foster v. Larry Dean Foster Minn. Ct. App. 2016
In re the Marriage of: Rosalyn LaRae Johnson, f/k/a Rosalyn LaRae Foster v. Larry Dean Foster Minn. Ct. App. 2016
As the district court observed, the supreme court has used the term “jurisdiction” in this context, see, but the term “authority” might better apply, see Moore, d at 287 n.1 (noting that “courts and parties often use concepts and language associated with ‘jurisdiction’ imprecisely to refer to, among other things, nonjurisdictional claims-processing rules or nonjurisdictional limits on a court’
Lifespan of Minnesota, Inc. v. Minneapolis Public Schools, Special School District No. 1. Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Lifespan of Minnesota, Inc. v. Minneapolis Public Schools, Special School District No. 1. Minn. Ct. App. 2016
In re the Marriage of: Mary Patricia Myhre v. Steven Kenneth Myhre Minn. Ct. App. 2015
In re the Marriage of: Mary Patricia Myhre v. Steven Kenneth Myhre Minn. Ct. App. 2015
at 68; –44 & n.2 (Minn. 1994) (reasoning that “[a]lthough none of the 14 principles or doctrines requiring that judicial decisions have preclusive effect apply .
In re the Marriage of: John Thomas Andrusko v. Genevieve Ann Andrusko Minn. Ct. App. 2015
In re the Marriage of: John Thomas Andrusko v. Genevieve Ann Andrusko Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Colleen M. Doyle v. Keith R. Klein Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Colleen M. Doyle v. Keith R. Klein Minn. Ct. App. 2015
The law-of-the-case doctrine “applies where an appellate court has ruled on a legal issue and has remanded the case to the [district] court for further proceedings.” n.1 (Minn. 1994).
In the Matter of the Civil Commitment of: Stephen Danforth, a/k/a Stephen Rabideau. Minn. Ct. App. 2014
In re the Marriage of: Terry John Hietpas v. Barbara Elizabeth Reed f/k/a Barbara Elizabeth Reed Hietpas Minn. Ct. App. 2014
In re the Marriage of: Terry John Hietpas v. Barbara Elizabeth Reed f/k/a Barbara Elizabeth Reed Hietpas Minn. Ct. App. 2014
In the Matter of the Civil Commitment of: Stephen Danforth, a/k/a Stephen Rabideau. Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Aside from his argument’s lack of support, this court follows “the underlying principle that an adjudication on the merits of an issue is conclusive, and should not be relitigated.”
Marriage of Gossman v. Gossman 847 N.W.2d 718 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Marriage of Gossman v. Gossman 847 N.W.2d 718 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
-45 (Minn.1994); superseded in part by statute, 1989 Minn. Laws ch. 248, § 7, at 838 (codified at Minn.Stat.
Marriage of Grachek v. Grachek 750 N.W.2d 328 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
Marriage of Grachek v. Grachek 750 N.W.2d 328 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
Butt v. Schmidt 747 N.W.2d 566 Minn. 2008
Butt v. Schmidt 747 N.W.2d 566 Minn. 2008
Moore v. Moore 734 N.W.2d 285 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
Moore v. Moore 734 N.W.2d 285 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
1 See, (stating that “[ojnce maintenance payments end, the court is without juris *288 diction to modify maintenance”); (Coyne, J., dissenting) (stating that “it is well settled that where there is neither an award of maintenance nor a reservation in the decree
Brown-Wilbert, Inc. v. Copeland Buhl & Co. 732 N.W.2d 209 Minn. 2007
Brown-Wilbert, Inc. v. Copeland Buhl & Co. 732 N.W.2d 209 Minn. 2007
for other examples of this court’s application of res judicata, see Hauschildt, d at 840-41 (analyzing the defense of claim splitting under the res judicata doctrine, concluding that the second action could proceed because the claims were not identical); , 744 n. 1 (Minn.1994) (“Res judicata, or claim preclusion, prevents parties from splitting claims into more than one lawsuit and precludes further litigation of the same claim.”); -08 (Minn.1978) (analyzing the defense of claim splitting under
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 acq
Maschoff v. Leiding 696 N.W.2d 834 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
Maschoff v. Leiding 696 N.W.2d 834 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
Further, the availability and application of res judicata and collateral estop-pel in family matters is limited, but “the underlying principle that an adjudication on the merits of an issue is conclusive, and should not be relitigated, clearly applies.” see id.
Evans v. Evans 672 N.W.2d 232 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
Evans v. Evans 672 N.W.2d 232 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
Longrie v. Luthen 662 N.W.2d 150 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
Longrie v. Luthen 662 N.W.2d 150 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
743-44 and n.l (Minn.1994) (addressing res judicata, collateral estop-pel, and law of the case in marriage dissolution proceedings).
Interstate Power Co. v. Nobles County Board of Commissioners 617 N.W.2d 566 Minn. 2000
Balasuriya v. Bemel 617 N.W.2d 596 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
Balasuriya v. Bemel 617 N.W.2d 596 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
Jerry Mathison Construction, Inc. v. Binsfield 615 N.W.2d 378 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
Jerry Mathison Construction, Inc. v. Binsfield 615 N.W.2d 378 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
The law-of-the-case doctrine “ordinarily applies where an appellate court has ruled on a legal issue and has remanded the case to the lower court for further proceedings.” , 744 n. 1 (Minn.1994).
Marriage of McLain v. McLain 569 N.W.2d 219 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
Marriage of McLain v. McLain 569 N.W.2d 219 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
n. 1 (Minn.1994) (law of the case ordinarily applies where an appellate court has ruled on a legal issue and remanded the ease for further proceedings).
Marriage of Beck v. Kaplan 566 N.W.2d 723 Minn. 1997
Marriage of Beck v. Kaplan 566 N.W.2d 723 Minn. 1997
-04 (Minn.1989) (when we approved and enforced the parties’ express waiver by stipulation of any right to seek a spousal maintenance modification), (when we cautioned that, to have binding effect, a stipulated waiver must contain both the contractual waiver of the statutory right to seek modification and express language divesting the trial court of its continuing jurisdiction to entertain such motion).
Santillan v. Martine 560 N.W.2d 749 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
Santillan v. Martine 560 N.W.2d 749 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
5 (1996); , 746 n. 6 (Minn.1994) (recognizing section 518.552, subdivision 5, protections for parties limiting modification of maintenance by stipulation).
Marriage of Kornberg v. Kornberg 542 N.W.2d 379 Minn. 1996
Marriage of Kornberg v. Kornberg 542 N.W.2d 379 Minn. 1996
DonCARLOS v. DonCARLOS 535 N.W.2d 819 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
DonCARLOS v. DonCARLOS 535 N.W.2d 819 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
Marriage of Kornberg v. Kornberg 525 N.W.2d 14 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
Marriage of Kornberg v. Kornberg 525 N.W.2d 14 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
The law of the case doctrine “ordinarily applies where an appellate court has ruled on a legal issue and has remanded the case to the lower court for further proceedings.” , 744 n. 1 (Minn.1994).

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by