Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Barrett v. Smith, 237 N.W. 15.

113 citing documents.

Lisa Ann Poseley v. Andrew Scott Duff, and Lisa Ann Poseley on Behalf of Minor ... Minn. Ct. App. 2023
Lisa Ann Poseley v. Andrew Scott Duff, and Lisa Ann Poseley on Behalf of Minor ... Minn. Ct. App. 2023
Marriage of Mingen v. Mingen 679 N.W.2d 724 Minn. 2004
Marriage of Mingen v. Mingen 679 N.W.2d 724 Minn. 2004
See Barrett v. Smith, 183 Minn. 431, 436 , 237 N.W.
Limongelli v. GAN National Insurance Co. 590 N.W.2d 167 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
Limongelli v. GAN National Insurance Co. 590 N.W.2d 167 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
The supreme court also has held that where the right of appeal from an “unvacat-ed appealable order has expired, the right of appeal is not revived by a negative order on a second motion for the same relief.” Barrett v. Smith, 183 Minn. 431, 440 , 237 N.W.
Knutson v. Commissioner of Public Safety 406 N.W.2d 560 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Knutson v. Commissioner of Public Safety 406 N.W.2d 560 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Kolb v. City of Minneapolis, 229 Minn. 483, 487 , Barrett v. Smith, 183 Minn. 431 , 237 N.W.
Wilson v. Mitchell 349 N.W.2d 586 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Wilson v. Mitchell 349 N.W.2d 586 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
It is clear that “ ‘where the right to appeal from an unva-cated appealable order has expired, the right of appeal is not revived by a negative order on a second motion for the same relief.’ ” quoting Barrett v. Smith, 183 Minn. 431, 440 , 237 N.W.
Marriage of Bledsoe v. Bledsoe 344 N.W.2d 892 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Marriage of Bledsoe v. Bledsoe 344 N.W.2d 892 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
“Where the right to appeal from an unvacated appealable order has expired the right of appeal is not revived by a negative order on a second motion for the same relief.” (quoting Barrett v. Smith, 183 Minn. 431, 440 , 237 N.W.
Bongard v. Bongard 342 N.W.2d 156 Minn. Ct. App. 1983
Bongard v. Bongard 342 N.W.2d 156 Minn. Ct. App. 1983
It is well established that “where the right to appeal from an unvacated appealable order has expired, the right of appeal is not revived by a negative order on a second motion for the same relief.” Barrett v. Smith, 183 Minn. 431, 440 , 237 N.W.
Southland Corp. v. City of Minneapolis 279 N.W.2d 822 Minn. 1979
Southland Corp. v. City of Minneapolis 279 N.W.2d 822 Minn. 1979
In a leading case, Barrett v. Smith, 183 Minn. 431 , 237 N.W.
Kloos v. Soo Line Railroad 163 N.W.2d 567 Minn. 1968
Kloos v. Soo Line Railroad 163 N.W.2d 567 Minn. 1968
The “strict and definite rule,” as stated in Barrett v. Smith, 183 Minn. 431, 440 , , is that “where the right of appeal from an unvacated appealable order has expired the right of appeal is not revived by a negative order on a second motion for the same relief.” 1 The rationale of the rule is that the second order is only a confirmation of the unvacated first order, so that a
Anderson v. Anderson 152 N.W.2d 758 Minn. 1967
In Re Lakeland Development Corporation 152 N.W.2d 758 Minn. 1967
Anderson v. Anderson 152 N.W.2d 758 Minn. 1967
See, Barrett v. Smith, 183 Minn. 431 , ; Butler v. Butler Brothers, 186 Minn. 144 , .
In Re Lakeland Development Corporation 152 N.W.2d 758 Minn. 1967
[8] See, Barrett v. Smith, 183 Minn. 431 , 237 N.W.
Theis v. Theis 135 N.W.2d 740 Minn. 1965
Theis v. Theis 135 N.W.2d 740 Minn. 1965
See; Barrett v. Smith, 183 Minn. 431 , ; Tryggeseth v. Norcross, 262 Minn. 440 , 115 N. W. (2d) 56 .
State v. Sullivan 121 N.W.2d 590 Minn. 1963
State v. Sullivan 121 N.W.2d 590 Minn. 1963
Co. 23 Minn. 4 ; Brown v. County of Cook, 82 Minn. 542 , ; Treat v. Court Minn. No. 17, U. O. F. 109 Minn. 110 , ; Harcum v. Benson, 135 Minn. 23 , ; Churchill v. Overend, 142 Minn. 102 , ; State v. Lund, 174 Minn. 194 , ; Barrett v. Smith, 183 Minn. 431 , ; General Motors Acceptance Corp. v. Jobe, 188 Minn. 598 , ; Johnson v. Union Savings Bank & Trust Co. 193 Minn. 357 , ; Weckerling v. McNiven Land Co. 231 Minn. 167 , 42 N. W. (2d) 701 ; State v. Nobles, 234 Minn. 38 , 47 N. W. (2d) 473 ;
INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 857 v. Seem 116 N.W.2d 395 Minn. 1962
INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 857 v. Seem 116 N.W.2d 395 Minn. 1962
We there refused to deviate from the rule established in Barrett v. Smith, 183 Minn. 431 , .
Tryggeseth v. Norcross 115 N.W.2d 56 Minn. 1962
Tryggeseth v. Norcross 115 N.W.2d 56 Minn. 1962
which denied plaintiffs’ first motion for a new trial; * * Appellant states in his brief that by letter dated April 5 he further directed the trial court’s attention to the necessity for vacating the first order in the following language: “However, the sole purpose of this letter, copies of which are going to Attorneys Quinlivan and Haeney, is to reiterate the rule enunciated in Barrett v. Smith, 183 Minn. 431 , , which states among other things that in this type of situation the trial court ‘sh
Tombs v. Ashworth 95 N.W.2d 423 Minn. 1959
Tombs v. Ashworth 95 N.W.2d 423 Minn. 1959
In Barrett v. Smith, 183 Minn. 431, 439-440 , , this court — which was therein concerned with the vacation of appealable orders after the time for appeal had expired — held that an order may be vacated for the purpose of granting a bona fide reconsideration on the merits, but did not hold that an order may be vacated for the purpose of
Favorite v. Minneapolis Street Railway Co. 91 N.W.2d 459 Minn. 1958
Favorite v. Minneapolis Street Railway Co. 91 N.W.2d 459 Minn. 1958
1 Barrett v. Smith, 183 Minn. 431 , ; Kolb v. City of Minneapolis, 229 Minn. 483 , 40 N. W. (2d) 619 ; Bennett v. Johnson, 230 Minn. 404 , 42 N. W. (2d) 44 ; Burkholder v. Burkholder, 231 Minn. 285 , 43 N. W. (2d) 801 .
The Jesmer Co. v. Wurdemann-Hjelm Corp. 85 N.W.2d 207 Minn. 1957
The Jesmer Co. v. Wurdemann-Hjelm Corp. 85 N.W.2d 207 Minn. 1957
Weiss v. Moriarty, 203 Minn. 23 , ; Johnson v. Union Savings B. & T. Co. 196 Minn. 588 , ; Johnson v. Union Savings B. & T. Co. 193 Minn. 357 , ; General Motors Acceptance Corp. v. Jobe, 188 Minn. 598 , ; Barrett v. Smith, 183 Minn. 431 , ; Fidelity-Philadelphia Trust Co. v. Brown, 181 Minn. 466 , ; Duncan v. Barnard Cope Mfg.
Burkholder v. Burkholder 43 N.W.2d 801 Minn. 1950
Burkholder v. Burkholder 43 N.W.2d 801 Minn. 1950
Barrett v. Smith, 183 Minn. 431 , ; Kolb v. City of Minneapolis, 229 Minn. 483 , 40 N. W. (2d) 619 ; Bennett v. Johnson, 230 Minn. 404 , 42 N. W. (2d) 44 .
Weckerling v. McNiven Land Co. 42 N.W.2d 701 Minn. 1950
Weckerling v. McNiven Land Co. 42 N.W.2d 701 Minn. 1950
In Barrett v. Smith, 183 Minn. 431, 439-440 , , this court — which was therein concerned with the vacation of appealable orders after the time for appeal had expired — held that an order may be vacated for the purpose of granting a tona fide reconsideration on the merits, but did not hold that an order may be vacated for the purpose of
Bennett v. Johnson 42 N.W.2d 44 Minn. 1950
Bennett v. Johnson 42 N.W.2d 44 Minn. 1950
In Barrett v. Smith, 188 Minn. 431 , , plaintiff moved for a new trial.
Trickel v. Calvin 41 N.W.2d 426 Minn. 1950
Trickel v. Calvin 41 N.W.2d 426 Minn. 1950
On November 28, 1949, the trial court made its order “That the Motion and all thereof is hereby denied.” Contrary to defendants’ contention, the procedure followed by the trial court in the making of its order was correct and in keeping with the procedural suggestions found in Barrett v. Smith, 183 Minn. 431 , .
Seagram-Distillers Corp. v. Lang 41 N.W.2d 429 Minn. 1950
Seagram-Distillers Corp. v. Lang 41 N.W.2d 429 Minn. 1950
Barrett v. Smith, 183 Minn. 431 , .
Kolb v. City of Minneapolis 40 N.W.2d 619 Minn. 1949
Kolb v. City of Minneapolis 40 N.W.2d 619 Minn. 1949
• In Barrett v. Smith, 183 Minn. 431 , , plaintiffs moved for a new trial.
Boston Insurance Co. v. A. H. Jacobson Co. 33 N.W.2d 602 Minn. 1948
Boston Insurance Co. v. A. H. Jacobson Co. 33 N.W.2d 602 Minn. 1948
Under the doctrine of Barrett v. Smith, 183 Minn. 431 , , the district court has the power before judgment to review or vacate an order made by it, *485 even though it is appealable and the time to appeal has expired.