DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Fetsch v. Holm, 52 N.W.2d 113.

47 citing documents.

  • Minnesota Voters Alliance, et al., Petitioners, Republican Party of Minnesota, Petitioner, vs. Timothy Walz, in his ... Minn. 2025
  • Minnesota Voters Alliance, et al., Petitioners, Republican Party of Minnesota, Petitioner, vs. Timothy Walz, in his ... Minn. 2025
    “[T]he practical question in each case is whether there has been such an unreasonable delay in asserting a known right, resulting in prejudice to others, as would make it inequitable to grant the relief prayed for.”
  • Steven D. Woodke, et al., Appellants, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
    D. Laches A claim of laches requires “such an unreasonable delay in asserting a known right, resulting in prejudice to others, as would make it inequitable to grant the relief prayed for.”
  • Monaghen v. Simon 888 N.W.2d 324 Minn. 2016
  • Monaghen v. Simon 888 N.W.2d 324 Minn. 2016
    “ ‘[T]he practical question in each case is whether there has been such an unreasonable delay in asserting a known right, resulting in prejudice to others, as would make it inequitable to grant the relief prayed for.’ ” Winters, d at 170 (quoting Fetsch v. Holm, 236 Minn. 158, 163 , ).
  • Carlson v. Ritchie 830 N.W.2d 887 Minn. 2013
  • Carlson v. Ritchie 830 N.W.2d 887 Minn. 2013
    See Fetsch v. Holm, 236 Minn. 158, 163-64 , -16 (1952) (noting challenger had no right to assert claim until error was discovered on ballot).
  • Martin v. Dicklich 823 N.W.2d 336 Minn. 2012
  • Martin v. Dicklich 823 N.W.2d 336 Minn. 2012
    *341 The “‘practical question in each case is whether there has been such an unreasonable delay in asserting a known right, resulting in prejudice to others, as would make it inequitable to grant the relief prayed for.’” Winters, d at 170 (quoting Fetsch v. Holm, 236 Minn. 158, 163 , ).
  • Anderson v. Ritchie 819 N.W.2d 445 Minn. 2012
  • In re Pfliger 819 N.W.2d 620 Minn. 2012
  • Anderson v. Ritchie 819 N.W.2d 445 Minn. 2012
    inating petition for lack of sufficient signatures for which a street address, rather than a post office box, was given); (affirming the rejection of a nominating petition for lack of the required number of signatures and barring *447 candidate from adding signatures gathered after the filing deadline); Fetseh v. Holm, 286 Minn. 158 , 162-63, (affirming the rejection of a nominating petition that contained more than sufficient signatures but lacked the required oath).
  • In re Pfliger 819 N.W.2d 620 Minn. 2012
    fmeyer, (affirming the rejection of nominating petitions for lack of the required number of signatures and barring candidate from adding signatures gathered after the filing deadline); -16 (Minn.2006) (affirming the rejection of an affidavit of candidacy timely filed but filed with the wrong election official); Fetsch v. Holm, 236 Minn. 158, 162-63 , (affirming the rejection of a nominating petition as “fatally defective” because it lacked the required oath); State ex rel.
  • Clark v. Reddick 791 N.W.2d 292 Minn. 2010
  • Clark v. Reddick 791 N.W.2d 292 Minn. 2010
    In evaluating a claim of laches, “the practical question in each case is whether there has been such an unreasonable delay in asserting a known right, resulting in prejudice to others, as would make it inequitable to grant the relief prayed for.” Fetsch v. Holm, 236 Minn. 158, 163
  • Clark v. Pawlenty 755 N.W.2d 293 Minn. 2008
  • Clark v. Pawlenty 755 N.W.2d 293 Minn. 2008
    at 170 (quoting Fetsch v. Holm, 236 Minn. 158, 163 , ).
  • State Ex Rel. Sviggum v. Hanson 732 N.W.2d 312 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
  • State Ex Rel. Sviggum v. Hanson 732 N.W.2d 312 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
    Aronovitch v. Levy, 238 Minn. 237, 242 , Fetsch v. Holm, 236 Minn. 158, 163
  • Studer v. Kiffmeyer 712 N.W.2d 552 Minn. 2006
  • Studer v. Kiffmeyer 712 N.W.2d 552 Minn. 2006
    assessing timeliness challenges in candidate residency cases, we stated, “In considering laches, we have held that the practical question in each case is whether there has been such an unreasonable delay in asserting a known right, resulting in prejudice to others, as would make it inequitable to grant the relief prayed for.” (quoting Fetsch v. Holm, 236 Minn. 158, 163 , ).
  • Clayton v. Kiffmeyer 688 N.W.2d 117 Minn. 2004
  • Clayton v. Kiffmeyer 688 N.W.2d 117 Minn. 2004
    at 170 (quoting Fetsch v. Holm, 236 Minn. 158, 163 , ).
  • Melendez v. O'CONNOR 654 N.W.2d 114 Minn. 2002
  • Melendez v. O'CONNOR 654 N.W.2d 114 Minn. 2002
    Dismissal under the equitable doctrine of laches is appropriate if “there has been such an unreasonable delay in asserting a known right, resulting in prejudice to others, as would make it inequitable to grant the relief prayed for.” Fetsch v. Holm, 236 Minn. 158, 163
  • Lundquist v. Leonard 652 N.W.2d 33 Minn. 2002
  • Olson v. ZEUHLKE 652 N.W.2d 37 Minn. 2002
  • Piepho v. Bruns 652 N.W.2d 40 Minn. 2002
  • Lundquist v. Leonard 652 N.W.2d 33 Minn. 2002
    See Fetsch v. Holm, 236 Minn. 158, 163
  • Olson v. ZEUHLKE 652 N.W.2d 37 Minn. 2002
    See Fetsch v. Holm, 236 Minn. 158, 163
  • Piepho v. Bruns 652 N.W.2d 40 Minn. 2002
    “In considering laches, we have held that the practical question in each case is whether there has been such an unreasonable delay in asserting a known right, resulting in prejudice to others, as would make it inequitable to grant the relief prayed for.” Fetsch v. Holm, 236 Minn. 158, 163
  • Winters v. Kiffmeyer 650 N.W.2d 167 Minn. 2002
  • Winters v. Kiffmeyer 650 N.W.2d 167 Minn. 2002
    2 “In considering laches, we have held that the practical question in each case is whether there has been such an unreasonable delay in asserting a known right, resulting in prejudice to others, as would make it inequitable to grant the relief prayed for.” Fetsch v. Holm, 236 Minn. 158, 163
  • Harr v. City of Edina 541 N.W.2d 603 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
  • Harr v. City of Edina 541 N.W.2d 603 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
    The basic question is “whether there has been such an unreasonable delay in asserting a known right, resulting in prejudice to others, as would make it inequitable to grant the relief prayed for.” Fetsch v. Holm, 236 Minn. 158, 163
  • Byrd v. Independent School District No. 194 495 N.W.2d 226 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
  • Byrd v. Independent School District No. 194 495 N.W.2d 226 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
    In evaluating a laches claim, the basic question is “whether there has been such an unreasonable delay in asserting a known right, resulting in prejudice to others, as would make it inequitable to grant the relief prayed for.” Klapmeier, d at 137 (quoting Fetsch v. Holm, 236 Minn. 158, 163 , ).
  • Shortridge v. Daubney 425 N.W.2d 840 Minn. 1988
  • Shortridge v. Daubney 425 N.W.2d 840 Minn. 1988
    Relief will be denied in those cases where “unreasonable delay in asserting a known right, resulting in prejudice to others, * * * make[s] it inequitable to grant the relief prayed for.” Klapmeier, d at 137 (citing Fetsch v. Holm, 236 Minn. 158, 163 , ).
  • Klapmeier v. Town of Center of Crow Wing County 346 N.W.2d 133 Minn. 1984
  • Klapmeier v. Town of Center of Crow Wing County 346 N.W.2d 133 Minn. 1984
    The basic question is “whether there has been such an unreasonable delay in asserting a known right, resulting in prejudice to others, as would make it inequitable to grant the relief prayed for.” Fetsch v. Holm, 236 Minn. 158, 163
  • Mad v. Pr 277 N.W.2d 27 Minn. 1979
  • M. A. D. v. P. R. 277 N.W.2d 27 Minn. 1979
  • M. A. D. v. P. R. 277 N.W.2d 27 Minn. 1979
    Fetsch v. Holm, 236 Minn. 158
  • Mad v. Pr 277 N.W.2d 27 Minn. 1979
    Fetsch v. Holm, 236 Minn. 158
  • Williams v. Donovan 92 N.W.2d 915 Minn. 1958
  • Williams v. Donovan 92 N.W.2d 915 Minn. 1958
    See, Fetsch v. Holm, 236 Minn. 158 , 52 N. W. (2d) 113 .