Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Halloran v. BLUE AND WHITE LIBERTY CAB CO. INC., 92 N.W.2d 794.

38 citing documents.

A24-1327 Minn. Ct. App. 2025
Halloran v. Blue & White Liberty Cab Co.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
She cites the principle described in Halloran v. Blue & White Liberty Cab Co. —that “[a] judgment may be set aside at any time for after-discovered fraud on the court.”
A20-1587 Minn. Ct. App. 2021
ther Reason Justifying Relief Appellants seek relief under rule 60.02(f) based upon an alleged “fraud upon the court.” Fraud upon the court occurs when “a court is misled as to material circumstances, or its process is abused, resulting in the rendition of a judgment which would not have been given if the whole con duct of the case had been fair.” Halloran v. Blue & White Liberty Cab Co.
Brittany Ann Vacko v. Rebecca Lee Treptow Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Brittany Ann Vacko v. Rebecca Lee Treptow Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Halloran v. Blue & White Liberty Cab Co., 253 Minn. 436, 442
In Re the Welfare of the Children of R.A.J. 769 N.W.2d 297 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
In Re the Welfare of the Children of R.A.J. 769 N.W.2d 297 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
Fraud on the court exists when “a court is misled as to material circumstances, or its process is abused, resulting in the rendition of a judgment which would not have been given if the whole conduct of the case had been fair.” review denied (Minn. May 29, 1986) (quoting Halloran v. Blue & White Liberty Cab Co., 253 Minn. 436, 442 , ).
In re C.M.A. 557 N.W.2d 353 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
In Re CMA 557 N.W.2d 353 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
In re C.M.A. 557 N.W.2d 353 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
“Fraud upon the court” exists when “a court is misled as to material circumstances, or its process is abused, resulting in the rendition of a judgment which would not have been given if the whole conduct of the case had been fair.” Halloran v. Blue & White Liberty Cab Co., 253 Minn. 436, 442
In Re CMA 557 N.W.2d 353 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
Halloran v. Blue & White Liberty Cab Co., 253 Minn. 436, 442
Cochrane v. Tudor Oaks Condominium Project 529 N.W.2d 429 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
Cochrane v. Tudor Oaks Condominium Project 529 N.W.2d 429 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
Appellants argue that Halloran v. Blue White Liberty Cab Co. , 253 Minn. 436 , mandates remanding this case to the district court with instructions to vacate the underlying judgment.
Dorso Trailer Sales, Inc. v. American Body & Trailer, Inc. 464 N.W.2d 551 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
Dorso Trailer Sales, Inc. v. American Body & Trailer, Inc. 464 N.W.2d 551 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
As support, Dorso cites Halloran v. Blue & White Liberty Cab Co., 253 Minn. 436
Graham v. Special School District No. 1 462 N.W.2d 78 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
Graham v. Special School District No. 1 462 N.W.2d 78 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
See Halloran v. Blue & White Liberty Cab Co., 253 Minn. 436, 442
Wirig v. Kinney Shoe Corp. 448 N.W.2d 526 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
Wirig v. Kinney Shoe Corp. 448 N.W.2d 526 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
Halloran v. Blue & White Liberty Cab Co., Inc., 253 Minn. 436, 444
In Re the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission's Initiation of Summary Investigation 417 N.W.2d 274 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
In Re the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission's Initiation of Summary Investigation 417 N.W.2d 274 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
White Liberty Cab Co., 253 Minn. 436 , the Minnesota Supreme Court stated: A judgment may be set aside at any time for after discovered fraud upon the court.
In re the Welfare of J.T.L. 414 N.W.2d 524 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
In re the Welfare of J.T.L. 414 N.W.2d 524 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
for rev. denied (Minn. May 29, 1986) (quoting Halloran v. Blue & White Liberty Cab Co., 253 Minn. 436, 442 , ).
Welfare of R.L.M. v. Moon 410 N.W.2d 925 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Welfare of R.L.M. v. Moon 410 N.W.2d 925 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
(quoting Halloran v. Blue & White Liberty Cab Co., 253 Minn. 436, 442 , ).
Marriage of Clay v. Clay 397 N.W.2d 571 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
In Re the Welfare of C.R.B. 384 N.W.2d 576 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
In Re the Welfare of C.R.B. 384 N.W.2d 576 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Further, in Halloran v. Blue & White Liberty Cab Co., 253 Minn. 436, 442 , the Minnesota Supreme Court noted that “[a] judgment may be set aside at any time for after-discovered fraud upon the court.” Because the trial court found there had been a fraud upon the court, the time limits of Minn.R.
In re the Conservatorship of Bromley 359 N.W.2d 723 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
In re the Conservatorship of Bromley 359 N.W.2d 723 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Halloran v. Blue and White Liberty Cab Co., 253 Minn. 436, 442
Shimp Ex Rel. Shimp v. Sederstrom 233 N.W.2d 292 Minn. 1975
Shimp Ex Rel. Shimp v. Sederstrom 233 N.W.2d 292 Minn. 1975
Halloran v. Blue & White Liberty Cab Co. 253 Minn. 436
State v. DeSchepper 231 N.W.2d 294 Minn. 1975
State v. DeSchepper 231 N.W.2d 294 Minn. 1975
9 Halloran v. Blue & White Liberty Cab Co. Inc. 253 Minn. 436
Anderson v. First Nat. Bank of Pine City 228 N.W.2d 257 Minn. 1975
Anderson v. First Nat. Bank of Pine City 228 N.W.2d 257 Minn. 1975
See, *414 Sanvik v. Maher, 280 Minn. 113 , Lemmer v. Batzli Electric Co. 267 Minn. 8 , Halloran v. Blue & White Liberty Cab Co. Inc. 253 Minn. 436
Hemming v. Ald, Inc. 155 N.W.2d 384 Minn. 1967
Hemming v. Ald, Inc. 155 N.W.2d 384 Minn. 1967
10 Halloran v. Blue and White Liberty Cab Co. Inc. 253 Minn. 436, 442 , footnote 4, 92 N. W. (2d) 794, 798 , footnote 4.