Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Hampshire Arms Hotel Co. v. Wells, 298 N.W. 452.

26 citing documents.

Craig Stevenson, et al., Appellants, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
A court may enter a nunc pro tunc judgment “as of the time when the party would otherwise have been entitled to it, if justice requires, [when] the delay in entering it is caused by action of the court.”
Discover Bank, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
The purpose of a nunc pro tunc order is to correct the record or fix a clerical error, but “not to supply judicial action.”
In re the Marriage of: Sandra Sue Grazzini-Rucki, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
One purpose of a nunc pro tunc entry is to correct the record, “not to supply[] judicial action.” Hampshire Arms Hotel Co. v. Wells, 210 Minn. 286, 288, 298 N.W.
In re: Guardianship of Laye Komara, minor Minn. Ct. App. 2017
at 138 (holding that the district court abused its discretion by ordering entry of judgment nunc pro tunc to avoid application of a statutory interest rate on a judgment); Hampshire Arms Hotel Co. v. Wells , 210 Minn. 286, 288 -89, 298 N.W.
Casimir Robert Krithers v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Casimir Robert Krithers v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Nunc pro tunc is used to correct the record, “not to supply judicial action.” Hampshire Arms Hotel Co. v. Wells, 210 Minn. 286, 288
County of Washington v. TMT Land V, LLC 791 N.W.2d 132 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
County of Washington v. TMT Land V, LLC 791 N.W.2d 132 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
369 (1880) (“A nunc pro tunc order should be granted or refused, as justice may require in view of the circumstances of the particular case.”); Hampshire Arms Hotel Co. v. Wells, 210 Minn. 286, 288 , 298 N.W.
Medtronic, Inc. v. Advanced Bionics Corp. 630 N.W.2d 438 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
Medtronic, Inc. v. Advanced Bionics Corp. 630 N.W.2d 438 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
A nunc pro tunc order is “permitted to correct the record and in furtherance of justice.” Hampshire Arms Hotel Co. v. Wells, 210 Minn. 286, 288 , 298 N.W.
Duluth Ready-Mix Concrete, Inc. v. City of Duluth 520 N.W.2d 775 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
Duluth Ready-Mix Concrete, Inc. v. City of Duluth 520 N.W.2d 775 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
Hampshire Arms Hotel Co. v. Wells, 210 Minn. 286, 288 , 298 N.W.
Marriage of Jensen v. Jensen 414 N.W.2d 742 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Marriage of Jensen v. Jensen 414 N.W.2d 742 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
See Hampshire Arms Hotel Co. v. Wells, 210 Minn. 286 , 298 N.W.
McDonell v. Eggestein 357 N.W.2d 168 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
McDonell v. Eggestein 357 N.W.2d 168 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Hampshire Arms Hotel Co. v. Wells, 210 Minn. 286, 288 , 298 N.W.
Schaust v. TOWN BD. OF HOLLYWOOD TP., CARVER CTY. 204 N.W.2d 646 Minn. 1973
Schaust v. TOWN BD. OF HOLLYWOOD TP., CARVER CTY. 204 N.W.2d 646 Minn. 1973
Hampshire Arms Hotel Co. v. Wells, 210 Minn. 286
Ruprecht v. Ruprecht 96 N.W.2d 14 Minn. 1959
Ruprecht v. Ruprecht 96 N.W.2d 14 Minn. 1959
Wilcox v. Schloner, 222 Minn. 45 , 23 N. W. (2d) 19 ; Hampshire Arms Hotel Co. v. Wells, 210 Minn. 286 , ; Borer v. Chapman, 119 U. S. 587 , 7 S. Ct. 342 , 30 L. ed. 532.
Wilcox v. Schloner 23 N.W.2d 19 Minn. 1946
Wilcox v. Schloner 23 N.W.2d 19 Minn. 1946
As stated in Hampshire Arms Hotel Co. v. Wells, 210 Minn. 286, 288 , , 453: “Nunc pro tunc entries of judicial action are permitted to correct the record and in furtherance of justice.
Hampshire Arms Hotel Co. v. St. Paul Mercury & Indemnity Co. 9 N.W.2d 413 Minn. 1943
Hampshire Arms Hotel Co. v. St. Paul Mercury & Indemnity Co. 9 N.W.2d 413 Minn. 1943
Plaintiff, as the obligee, sues on the supersedeas bond executed by the intervener, Wells, as principal, and the defendant, as surety, in Hampshire Arms Hotel Co. v. Wells, 210 Minn. 286 , 298 N. W. *61 152, to recover its costs on the appeal and the amount of rent accruing between the taking and the dismissal of the appeal.
Barlau v. Minneapolis-Moline Power Implement Co. 9 N.W.2d 6 Minn. 1943
Barlau v. Minneapolis-Moline Power Implement Co. 9 N.W.2d 6 Minn. 1943
Hampshire Arms Hotel Co. v. Wells, 210 Minn. 286 , ; Thompson v. C. & N. W. Ry.