DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Peterson v. W. Davis & Sons, 11 N.W.2d 800.

33 citing documents.

  • Harper & Peterson, P.L.L.C. v. John W. Seckinger Minn. Ct. App. 2017
  • Harper & Peterson, P.L.L.C. v. John W. Seckinger Minn. Ct. App. 2017
    .” Peterson v. W. Davis & Sons, 216 Minn. 60, 64
  • Van Note v. 2007 Pontiac, VIN 1G2ZH58N574139187 787 N.W.2d 214 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
  • Van Note v. 2007 Pontiac, VIN 1G2ZH58N574139187 787 N.W.2d 214 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
    P. 4.03(a)); see also Holmen v. Miller, 296 Minn. 99, 104-05 , -20 (1973) (holding mere fact that individual with whom document was left was only 13 years old insufficient to rebut server’s statement that she was of suitable age and discretion); Peterson v. W. Davis & Sons, 216 Minn. 60, 66 , (holding individual may be of suitable discretion even if she did not understand import of papers left with her and was not advised to deliver them to intended recipient).
  • State v. BRIARD 784 N.W.2d 421 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
  • State v. BRIARD 784 N.W.2d 421 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
    Peterson v. W. Davis & Sons, 216 Minn. 60, 66 , (“Substituted service was made upon this defendant by leaving a copy of the summons and the complaint with his wife at his place of residence.”); Stransky v. Ind.
  • Pederson v. Clarkson Lindley Trust 519 N.W.2d 234 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
  • Pederson v. Clarkson Lindley Trust 519 N.W.2d 234 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
    More on point, we believe, is Peterson v. W. Davis & Sons, 216 Minn. 60
  • Goldsworthy v. State, Department of Public Safety 268 N.W.2d 46 Minn. 1978
  • Goldsworthy v. State, Department of Public Safety 268 N.W.2d 46 Minn. 1978
    See, also, Peterson v. W. Davis & Sons, 216 Minn. 60 , which holds that substituted service on a wife is effective despite the fact that the recipient did not understand the significance of the papers served on her.
  • Holmen v. Miller 206 N.W.2d 916 Minn. 1973
  • Holmen v. Miller 206 N.W.2d 916 Minn. 1973
    Temple v. Norris, 53 Minn. 286 , Peterson v. W. Davis & Sons, 216 Minn. 60
  • Frontier Lumber & Hardware, Inc. v. Dickey 183 N.W.2d 788 Minn. 1971
  • Frontier Lumber & Hardware, Inc. v. Dickey 183 N.W.2d 788 Minn. 1971
    Peterson v. W. Davis & Sons, 216 Minn. 60, 63 , 11 N. W. (2d) 800, 802 .
  • R & L Lumber Co. v. Summit Fidelity & Surety Co. 170 N.W.2d 594 Minn. 1969
  • R & L Lumber Co. v. Summit Fidelity & Surety Co. 170 N.W.2d 594 Minn. 1969
    Sommers v. Thomas, supra; Standard Oil Co. v. King, 238 Minn. 81 , 55 N. W. (2d) 710 ; Peterson v. W. Davis & Sons, 216 Minn. 60 , 11 N. W. (2d) 800 .
  • O'BRIEN v. Kemper 149 N.W.2d 487 Minn. 1967
  • O'BRIEN v. Kemper 149 N.W.2d 487 Minn. 1967
    We held in Peterson v. W. Davis & Sons, 216 Minn. 60 , 11 N. W. (2d) 800 , that an affidavit of merit is unnecessary if the proposed answer shows merit and is verified on personal knowledge.
  • Vrooman Floor Covering Inc. v. Dorsey 126 N.W.2d 377 Minn. 1964
  • Vrooman Floor Covering Inc. v. Dorsey 126 N.W.2d 377 Minn. 1964
    The rules of the district court do.” We think that the disposition of the instant case is governed by our decision in Peterson v. W. Davis & Sons, 216 Minn. 60, 67 , 11 N. W. (2d) 800, 804 , where we held: “As we view the entire record, it indicates to us that defendants were endeavoring to delay, if not entirely to avoid, the payment of a just obligation.
  • Bateman v. McDonald 385 P.2d 208 Ariz. 1963
  • Johnson v. Nelson 120 N.W.2d 333 Minn. 1963
  • Johnson v. Nelson 120 N.W.2d 333 Minn. 1963
    3 Peterson v. W. Davis & Sons, 216 Minn. 60 , 11 N. W. (2d) 800 ; Standard Oil Co. v. King, 238 Minn. 81 , 55 N. W. (2d) 710 ; Bearman Fruit Co. v. Parker, 212 Minn. 327 , 3 N. W. (2d) 501 .
  • Bredemann v. Bredemann 91 N.W.2d 84 Minn. 1958
  • Bredemann v. Bredemann 91 N.W.2d 84 Minn. 1958
    Paul & Duluth R. Co. 27 Minn. 109 , ; People’s Ice Co. v. Schlenker, 50 Minn. 1 , ; Philadelphia Storage Battery Co. v. Hawley, 154 Minn. 538 , ; Peterson v. W. Davis & Sons, 216 Minn. 60 , 11 N. W. (2d) 800 .
  • Sommers v. Thomas 88 N.W.2d 191 Minn. 1958
  • Sommers v. Thomas 88 N.W.2d 191 Minn. 1958
    18 Peterson v. W. Davis & Sons, 216 Minn. 60, 67 , 11 N. W. (2d) 800, 804 .
  • Nelson v. Glenwood Hills Hospitals, Inc. 62 N.W.2d 73 Minn. 1953
  • Nelson v. Glenwood Hills Hospitals, Inc. 62 N.W.2d 73 Minn. 1953
    Schultz v. Oldenburg, 202 Minn. 237 , ; Peterson v. W. Davis & Sons, 216 Minn. 60 , 11 N. W. (2d) 800 ; Tharp v. Tharp, 228 Minn. 23 , 36 N. W. (2d) 1 ; First Nat.
  • Tharp v. Tharp 36 N.W.2d 1 Minn. 1949
  • Tharp v. Tharp 36 N.W.2d 1 Minn. 1949
    ognized, however, that the notice, by the service of which the court requires [acquires] jurisdiction of the defendant, must, in substance, comply with the requirements of the statute, and must be sufficient to inform the defendant of the essential matters which the statute requires to be stated therein for the purpose of enabling him to answer and defend.” And in Peterson v. W. Davis & Sons, 216 Minn. 60, 64 , 11 N. W. (2d) 800, 803 , we stated: “* * * The purpose of the summons is to give
  • Bloom v. American Express Co. 23 N.W.2d 570 Minn. 1946
  • Bloom v. American Express Co. 23 N.W.2d 570 Minn. 1946
    Bank, 70 Minn. 298, 300 , ; and Peterson v. W. Davis & Sons, 216 Minn. 60 , 11 N. W. (2d) 800 , persuasively show that statutory directions as to the manner of service of process shall be complied with in order that jurisdiction of the individual defendant may be had.