Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Dale Ex Rel. Smith v. Pushor, 75 N.W.2d 595.

40 citing documents.

In the Marriage of: Robert Peter Crowley v. Bridget Marie Meyer Minn. Ct. App. 2016
In the Marriage of: Robert Peter Crowley v. Bridget Marie Meyer Minn. Ct. App. 2016
See Dale v. Pushor, 246 Minn. 254, 261, (“A label is of course not necessarily determinative of the purpose and nature of a motion.”).
Jeffrey Hugh Boldon v. Brian Perry Boldon Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Jeffrey Hugh Boldon v. Brian Perry Boldon Minn. Ct. App. 2015
“[T]he liberality to be shown in the allowance of amendments to pleadings depends in part upon the stage of the action and in a great measure upon the facts and circumstance of the particular case.” (citing Dale v. Pushor, 246 Minn. 254, 262, ), review denied (Minn. Oct.
Corval Constructors, Inc. v. FPD Power Development, LLC Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Corval Constructors, Inc. v. FPD Power Development, LLC Minn. Ct. App. 2015
“The liberality to be shown in the allowance of amendments depends in part upon the stage of the action and in a great measure upon the facts and circumstances of the particular case.” Dale v. Pushor, 246 Minn. 254, 262
Johns v. Harborage I, Ltd. 645 N.W.2d 761 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
Johns v. Harborage I, Ltd. 645 N.W.2d 761 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
Brendsel v. Wright, 301 Minn. 175, 178 , -97 (1974); Dale v. Pushor, 246 Minn. 254, 262
Bebo v. Delander 632 N.W.2d 732 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
Bebo v. Delander 632 N.W.2d 732 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
Dale v. Pushor, 246 Minn. 254, 262
In Re Butler 552 N.W.2d 226 Minn. 1996
Shields v. Goldetsky 552 N.W.2d 226 Minn. 1996
In Re Butler 552 N.W.2d 226 Minn. 1996
Dale v. Pushor, 246 Minn. 254, 257
Shields v. Goldetsky 552 N.W.2d 226 Minn. 1996
“Proceedings under section 559.21 for the cancellation of a contract for deed which is in default are in the nature of a statutory foreclosure, akin to a foreclosure under a power of sale in a mortgage.” Dale v. Pushor, 246 Minn. 254, 257
Davis v. Midwest Discount Securities, Inc. 439 N.W.2d 383 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Davis v. Midwest Discount Securities, Inc. 439 N.W.2d 383 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Harrold Co., 263 Minn. 470, 474-75 , (quoting Dale v. Pushor, 246 Minn. 254, 262 , ).
Harry N. Ray, Ltd. v. First National Bank of Pine City 410 N.W.2d 850 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Harry N. Ray, Ltd. v. First National Bank of Pine City 410 N.W.2d 850 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
See Dale v. Pushor, 246 Minn. 254, 263
Fogerty v. Rosenwald 391 N.W.2d 93 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Fogerty v. Rosenwald 391 N.W.2d 93 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
See Dale v. Pushor, 246 Minn. 254, 258
Glodek v. Rowinski 390 N.W.2d 477 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Glodek v. Rowinski 390 N.W.2d 477 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Dale v. Pushor, 246 Minn. 254, 261-62
L & H TRANSPORT, INC. v. Drew Agency, Inc. 369 N.W.2d 608 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
L & H TRANSPORT, INC. v. Drew Agency, Inc. 369 N.W.2d 608 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Dale v. Pushor, 246 Minn. 254 , see Hetland & Adamson, 1 Minnesota Practice at 516.
Northwestern National Bank of Minneapolis v. Shuster 364 N.W.2d 900 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Northwestern National Bank of Minneapolis v. Shuster 364 N.W.2d 900 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
See Dale v. Pushor, 246 Minn. 254, 262-63 , -02 (1956).
LOL Finance Co. v. Romain Corp. 352 N.W.2d 841 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
LOL Finance Co. v. Romain Corp. 352 N.W.2d 841 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Dale v. Pushor, 246 Minn. 254
Utecht v. Shopko Department Store 324 N.W.2d 652 Minn. 1982
Utecht v. Shopko Department Store 324 N.W.2d 652 Minn. 1982
Dale v. Pushor, 246 Minn. 254
LaSalle Cartage Co. v. Johnson Bros. Wholesale Liquor Co. 225 N.W.2d 233 Minn. 1974
LaSalle Cartage Co. v. Johnson Bros. Wholesale Liquor Co. 225 N.W.2d 233 Minn. 1974
Dale v. Pushor, 246 Minn. 254
Schroeder v. Jesco, Inc. 209 N.W.2d 414 Minn. 1973
Schroeder v. Jesco, Inc. 209 N.W.2d 414 Minn. 1973
Dale v. Pushor, 246 Minn. 254
Bastianson v. Forschen 196 N.W.2d 451 Minn. 1972
Bastianson v. Forschen 196 N.W.2d 451 Minn. 1972
1 Dale v. Pushor, 246 Minn. 254 , Brannan v. Shertzer, 242 Minn. 277 , Anderson v. Minneapolis, St.
Hughes v. Micka 130 N.W.2d 505 Minn. 1964
Hughes v. Micka 130 N.W.2d 505 Minn. 1964
In Dale v. Pushor, 246 Minn. 254, 262 , 75 N. W. (2d) 595, 601 , we said: “* * * Despite the need for liberality, it is not to be overlooked that the granting or denial of a motion for' an amendment to the pleadings is a matter lying in the sound discretion of the trial court and its action will not be reversed except for a clear abuse of discretion.
Tomlinson Lumber Sales, Inc. v. J. D. Harrold Co. 117 N.W.2d 203 Minn. 1962
Tomlinson Lumber Sales, Inc. v. J. D. Harrold Co. 117 N.W.2d 203 Minn. 1962
While pleadings may be freely amended when justice so requires under Rules 15.01 and 15.02, Rules of Civil Procedure, “[tlhe liberal *475 ity to be shown in the allowance of amendments depends in part upon the stage of the action.” Dale v. Pushor, 246 Minn. 254, 262 , 75 N. W. (2d) 595, 601 .