Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Rugland v. Anderson, 15 N.W. 676.

27 citing documents.

Dametria White, et al., as co-trustees for the next-of-kin of Helayne Bass, deceased, Appellants, Minn. Ct. App. 2026
( and then citing Bonhiver v. Fugelso, Porter, Simich, & Whiteman, Inc., d 138, 141 (Minn. 1984)).
In re: the Matter of the Le Duc Living Trust. Minn. Ct. App. 2025
Whitener Ex Rel. Miller v. Dahl 625 N.W.2d 827 Minn. 2001
Whitener Ex Rel. Miller v. Dahl 625 N.W.2d 827 Minn. 2001
Cashman, 215 Minn. at 467-72 , d at 391-93 (affirming Rugland v. Anderson, 30 Minn. 386 , 15 N.W.
Whitener v. Dahl 612 N.W.2d 188 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
Whitener v. Dahl 612 N.W.2d 188 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
Rugland v. Anderson, 30 Minn. 386, 386 , 15 N.W.
Ortiz Ex Rel. Ortiz v. Gavenda 590 N.W.2d 119 Minn. 1999
Ortiz Ex Rel. Ortiz v. Gavenda 590 N.W.2d 119 Minn. 1999
See Rugland v. Anderson, 30 Minn. 386 , 15 N.W.
Ortiz v. Gavenda 574 N.W.2d 764 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
Ortiz v. Gavenda 574 N.W.2d 764 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
Beck v. Groe, 245 Minn. 28, 34 , Cashman v. Hedberg, 215 Minn. 463, 465 , Rugland v. Anderson, 30 Minn. 386, 386 , 15 N.W.
Regie De L'Assurance Automobile Du Quebec v. Jensen 399 N.W.2d 85 Minn. 1987
Regie De L'Assurance Automobile Du Quebec v. Jensen 399 N.W.2d 85 Minn. 1987
See, e.g., Cashman v. Hedberg, 215 Minn. 463, 473 , Rugland v. Anderson, 30 Minn. 386 , 15 N.W.
DeRogatis Ex Rel. DeRogatis v. Mayo Clinic 390 N.W.2d 773 Minn. 1986
DeRogatis Ex Rel. DeRogatis v. Mayo Clinic 390 N.W.2d 773 Minn. 1986
Rugland v. Anderson, 30 Minn. 386 , 15 N.W.
Bonhiver v. Fugelso, Porter, Simich & Whiteman, Inc. 355 N.W.2d 138 Minn. 1984
Bonhiver v. Fugelso, Porter, Simich & Whiteman, Inc. 355 N.W.2d 138 Minn. 1984
g., Witthuhn v. Durbahn, 279 Minn. 437 , (strict construction of 2-year limitation); Berghuis v. Korthuis, 228 Minn. 534 , (meeting requirements of limitation period is a condition precedent to bringing suit); Cashman v. Hedberg, 215 Minn. 463 , (limitation period is a condition precedent to wrongful death suit); Rugland v. Anderson, 30 Minn. 386 , 15 N.W.
DeCosse v. Armstrong Cork Co. 319 N.W.2d 45 Minn. 1982
DeCosse v. Armstrong Cork Co. 319 N.W.2d 45 Minn. 1982
See, e.g., Berghuis v. Korthuis, 228 Minn. 534 , Cashman v. Hedberg, 215 Minn. 463 , Rugland v. Anderson, 30 Minn. 386 , 15 N.W.
Berghuis v. Korthuis 37 N.W.2d 809 Minn. 1949
Berghuis v. Korthuis 37 N.W.2d 809 Minn. 1949
Rugland v. Anderson, 30 Minn. 386 , ; Negaubauer v. G. N. Ry.
Cashman v. Hedberg 10 N.W.2d 388 Minn. 1943
Cashman v. Hedberg 10 N.W.2d 388 Minn. 1943
This identical question has been decided here, adversely to plaintiff, in Rugland v. Anderson, 30 Minn. 386 , .
Schultz v. Krosch 284 N.W. 782 Minn. 1939
It is elementary that a party may not defend an action by asserting facts or rights which do not concern him and in which he has no lawful interest, Herber v. Christopherson, 30 Minn. 395 , ; Farmers & M. State Bank v. Rush, 165 Minn. 121 , , 45 A. L. R. 1507; 5 Dunnell, Minn. Dig.
Casey v. American Bridge Co. 134 N.W. 111 Minn. 1912
Casey v. American Bridge Co. 134 N.W. 111 Minn. 1912
The case of Rugland v. Anderson, 30 Minn. 386 , , is cited by defendant in support of its contention that the condition as to the bringing of the action given by section 413 is absolute, and in no manner qualified by section 21.
Kopp v. Thele 116 N.W. 472 Minn. 1908
Williams v. Stewart, 25 Minn. 516 ; Herber v. Christopherson, 30 Minn. 395 , ; Roberts v. Meighen, 74 Minn. 273 , .
Doescher v. Spratt 63 N.W. 736 Minn. 1895
Standish v. Vosberg, 27 Minn. 175 , ; Herber v. Christopherson, 30 Minn. 395 , .