DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Berryhill v. Sepp, 119 N.W. 404.

28 citing documents.

  • Ronald A. Hagle, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
    “Usual place of abode” refers to “the place where the [individual] is actually living at the time when service is made.”
  • Balwant Prasad v. Kyle Leary Minn. Ct. App. 2024
  • Balwant Prasad v. Kyle Leary Minn. Ct. App. 2024
    The usual place of abode is the person’s “present place of abode” and “means one’s fixed place of residence for the time being.” –05 (Minn. 1909).
  • Twin City Petroleum and Properties, LLC, et al., Appellants, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
  • Steven J. Jaeger v. Palladium Holdings, LLC, Franklin Financial, LLC 884 N.W.2d 601 Minn. 2016
  • Steven J. Jaeger v. Palladium Holdings, LLC, Franklin Financial, LLC 884 N.W.2d 601 Minn. 2016
    271, 272 (1922) (explaining that the identification of a “usual place of abode” is a question “of fact”); see also Berryhill v. Sepp, 106 Minn. 458, 459, 119 N.W.
  • Ryan Contracting, Inc. v. Jag Investments, Inc. 634 N.W.2d 176 Minn. 2001
  • Ryan Contracting, Inc. v. Jag Investments, Inc. 634 N.W.2d 176 Minn. 2001
    Co., (“Service of process in a manner not authorized by the rule is ineffective service.”); Berryhill v. Sepp, 106 Minn. 458, 459 , 119 N.W.
  • Turek v. A.S.P. of Moorhead, Inc. 618 N.W.2d 609 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
  • Turek v. A.S.P. of Moorhead, Inc. 618 N.W.2d 609 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
    -13 (Minn.App.1986); see Lundgren, d at 890 (“Service of process ‘must accord strictly with statutory requirements.’ ”) (quoting Berryhill v. Sepp., 106 Minn. 458, 459 , 119 N.W.
  • Patterson v. Wu Family Corp. 594 N.W.2d 540 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
  • Patterson v. Wu Family Corp. 594 N.W.2d 540 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
    Therefore ‘usual place of abode’ means ‘present place of abode.’ Holtberg v. Bommersbach, 236 Minn. 335, 337 , (quoting Berryhill v. Sepp, 106 Minn. 458, 459-60 , 119 N.W.
  • Lundgren v. Green 592 N.W.2d 888 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
  • Lundgren v. Green 592 N.W.2d 888 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
    Service of process “must accord strictly with statutory requirements.” Berryhill v. Sepp., 106 Minn. 458, 459 , 119 N.W.
  • Marriage of Peterson v. Eishen 495 N.W.2d 223 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
  • Marriage of Peterson v. Eishen 495 N.W.2d 223 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
    4.03(a) provides service of a summons within the state may be made on an individual “by leaving a copy at the individual’s usual place of abode with some person of suitable age and discretion then residing therein.” 1 A person’s usual place of abode is “the place where the defendant is actually living at the time when service is made.” Berryhill v. Sepp, 106 Minn. 458, 459 , 119 N.W.
  • Walker Employment Service, Inc. v. Swanson 154 N.W.2d 823 Minn. 1967
  • Walker Employment Service, Inc. v. Swanson 154 N.W.2d 823 Minn. 1967
    1 Rule 4.03 (a) provides that service may be made: “Upon an individual by delivering a copy to him personally or by leaving a copy at his usual place of abode with some person of suitable age and discretion then residing therein.” 2 See, Berry hill v. Sepp, 106 Minn. 458, 460 , , 21 L. R. A. (N. S.) 344; Holtberg v. Bommersbach, 236 Minn. 335, 336 , 52 N. W. (2d) 766, 768 ; Willard v. Marr, 121 Minn. 23 , ; Missouri, K. & T. Trust Co. v. Norris, 61 Minn. 256 , ; Murtha v. Olson, 221 Minn. 24
  • Rask v. American Federation of Labor 116 N.W.2d 175 Minn. 1962
  • Rask v. American Federation of Labor 116 N.W.2d 175 Minn. 1962
    Berryhill v. Sepp, 106 Minn. 458, 460 , Holtberg v. Bommersbach, 236 Minn. 335, 338
  • Holtberg v. Bommersbach 52 N.W.2d 766 Minn. 1952
  • Holtberg v. Bommersbach 52 N.W.2d 766 Minn. 1952
    M. S. A. 543.05 provides that personal service shall be deemed made if a copy of the summons “be left at the house of the usual abode of the person to be served, with some person of suitable age and discretion then residing therein.” This court has had occasion many times to construe the term “house of the usual abode.” As stated in Berryhill v. Sepp, 106 Minn. 458, 459 , , 21 L.R.A.(N.S.)
  • Murray v. Murray 198 N.W. 307 Minn. 1924
  • Murray v. Murray 198 N.W. 307 Minn. 1924
    Upon the question of what constitutes the house of usual abode reference may be had to Berryhill v. Sepp, 106 Minn. *114 458 , , 21 L. R. A. (N. S.) 344, and Lovin v. Hicks, 116 Minn. 179 , .
  • Francis v. Knerr 182 N.W. 988 Minn. 1921
  • Francis v. Knerr 182 N.W. 988 Minn. 1921
    498 ; Berryhill v. Sepp, 106 Minn. 458 , ; Lawton v. Barker, 105 Minn. 102 , ; Eggleston v. Wattawa, 117 Iowa, 676 , ; 1 Black, Judgments, 333, § 223.
  • Lovin v. Hicks 133 N.W. 575 Minn. 1911
  • Lovin v. Hicks 133 N.W. 575 Minn. 1911
    Co. 79 Minn. 350 , ; Lee v. Macfee, 45 Minn. 33 , ; Berryhill v. Sepp, 106 Minn. 458 , , 21 L.R.A.(N.S.)