Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Finden v. Klaas, 128 N.W.2d 748.

213 citing documents.

Buck Blacktop, Inc. v. Gary Contracting and Trucking Company, LLC 929 N.W.2d 12 Minn. Ct. App. 2019
The district court denied the motion after applying the four-part test stated in Finden v. Klass , 268 Minn. 268
Jay Nygard, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
P. 60.02(f) and that he failed to satisfy the four - for relief from judgment.
Mary Brown, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
These factors are kn own as the Finden factors
Nicholas J. Carney, et al., Respondents, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Phyllis Louise Luskey, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Finden v. Klaas , , 750 (Minn. 1964).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Larson Ventures, Inc., Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
(citing Finden v. Klaas, 268 Minn. 268, 271, d 748, 750 (1964)).
Berg, Debele, DeSmidt & Rabuse, P.A., f/d/b/a Walling, Berg & Debele, P. A., Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
A party moving to reopen a default judgment must meet the four Finden elements: that he (1) has “a reasonable defense on the me rits,” (2) “has a reas onable excuse for his failure or neglect to answer,” (3) “has acted with due diligence after notice of the entry of judgment,” and that (4) “no substantial prejudice will result to the other party.” Finden v. Klass, 268 Minn. 268, 271
650 North Main Association, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
268, before granting Frauenshuh’s rule 60.02 motion.
Mary Larsen, et al., Appellants, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
debatably meritorious claim; (2) a reasonable excuse for his or her failure or neglect to act; (3) that he or she acted with due diligence after learning of the error or omission; and (4) that no substantial prejudice will result to the other party.” (quotations omitted); see Finden v. Klaas, 268 Minn. 268, 271, d 748, 750 (1964) (establishing these requirements) .
Livingston Financial, LLC, as successor in interest to US Bank, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Cornell v. Ripka 897 N.W.2d 801 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Cornell v. Ripka 897 N.W.2d 801 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
dgment would not cause prejudice to respondent parents because “over nine years have passed since the date of this incident,” and both parties “have likely forgotten at least some detail regarding the night in question.” A party seeking vacation of a dismissal must prove “no substantial prejudice will result to the other party.” Gams, d at 620 ; Cole, d at 637 ; Finden v. Klaas, 268 Minn. 268, 271
Larson Ventures, Inc., Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Gams, d at 620 (citing Finden v. Klaas, 268 Minn. 268, 271, ).
City of Vadnais Heights, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Finden v. Klaas, 268 Minn. 268, 271, Northland Temps., Inc. v. Turpin , review denied (Minn. Apr.
Susan Dianna Orr v. Rebecca Kay Britten Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Margaret MacCallum and Antimo Veneziale, individually, and as assignees of James S. Poyser and Ashley E. Poyser (Bystrom) … Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Susan Dianna Orr v. Rebecca Kay Britten Minn. Ct. App. 2017
(quotations omitted); see also Finden v. Klas, 268 Minn. 268, d 748 (1964).
Margaret MacCallum and Antimo Veneziale, individually, and as assignees of James S. Poyser and Ashley E. Poyser (Bystrom) … Minn. Ct. App. 2017
4 party.” –92 (Minn. 1988) (quoting Finden v. Klaas, 268 Minn. 268, 271, ).
John Troupe v. Jeff Foster Construction, LLC Minn. Ct. App. 2017
John Troupe v. Jeff Foster Construction, LLC Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Finden v. Klaas, 268 Minn. 268, 271, d 748, 750 (1964) (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. T. K. S. Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. T. K. S. Minn. Ct. App. 2016
268 Minn. 268, 271, -20 (Minn. 2016).
In re the Marriage of: Maria Suljic v. Ibrahim Suljic Minn. Ct. App. 2016
In re the Marriage of: Maria Suljic v. Ibrahim Suljic Minn. Ct. App. 2016
But the district court vacated the marriage-dissolution judgment finding that all four of the factors in Finden v. Klaas, 268 Minn. 268, 271, were met to show “excusable neglect.” In its analysis of the first Finden factor—whether husband had a “reasonable defense on the merits”—the district court concluded that Minnesota courts lacked personal jurisdiction over husband and that husband did not waive his lack-of-personal
Ferdinand Leo Gams, Jr., Respondent/Cross-Appellant v. Steven Ronald Houghton, Appellant/Cross-Respondent. 884 N.W.2d 611 Minn. 2016
Jerry Wayne Cole v. Alexander Allen Wutzke 884 N.W.2d 634 Minn. 2016
Ferdinand Leo Gams, Jr., Respondent/Cross-Appellant v. Steven Ronald Houghton, Appellant/Cross-Respondent. 884 N.W.2d 611 Minn. 2016
The district court concluded that Rule 60.02 is inapplicable to a dismissal under Rule 5.04(a) or, alternatively, that respondent Ferdinand Leo Gams, Jr. failed to establish all four requirements for relief under Rule 60.02, see Finden v. Klaas, 268 Minn. 268
Jerry Wayne Cole v. Alexander Allen Wutzke 884 N.W.2d 634 Minn. 2016
P. 60.02(a), because it failed to consider all four requirements from Finden v. Klaas, 268 Minn. 268, in light of the surrounding circumstances.
S. Robideau Construction, Inc. v. John E. Hiber, Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. Minn. Ct. App. 2016
In re the Marriage of: Jennifer Dawn Nyakundi v. Gilbert Ogamba Nyakundi Minn. Ct. App. 2016
In re the Marriage of: Jennifer Dawn Nyakundi v. Gilbert Ogamba Nyakundi Minn. Ct. App. 2016
P. 60.02, we apply the analysis articulated in Finden v. Klaas, 268 Minn. 268, 271
S. Robideau Construction, Inc. v. John E. Hiber, Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. Minn. Ct. App. 2016
P. 60.02, Minnesota courts apply the four-factor test that the supreme court set forth in Hinz v. Northland Milk & Ice Cream Co., 237 Minn. 28, 30, –56 (1952), and reaffirmed in Finden v. Klaas, 268 Minn. 268, 271
Curtis Trude, (A15-0378), (A15-1863, A15-1864), Glenwood State Bank, counterclaimant, and third party v. Peterson Earth Movers, Inc., Third … Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Thomas M. Fafinski v. Jaren Johnson Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Thomas M. Fafinski v. Jaren Johnson Minn. Ct. App. 2016
In its order, the district court, applying the factors for relief from default judgment, see Finden v. Klaas, 268 Minn. 268, 271, concluded that Johnson had failed to establish excusable neglect.
Curtis Trude, (A15-0378), (A15-1863, A15-1864), Glenwood State Bank, counterclaimant, and third party v. Peterson Earth Movers, Inc., Third … Minn. Ct. App. 2016
See Finden v. Klaas, 268 Minn. 268, 271, Hinz v. Northland Milk & Ice Cream Co., 237 Minn. 28, 30
Unifund CCR, LLC, as assignee of Pilot Receivables Management, LLC v. Jeffrey A. Carney Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Unifund CCR, LLC, as assignee of Pilot Receivables Management, LLC v. Jeffrey A. Carney Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Co. v. Wensmann, Inc., (citing Finden v. Klaas, 268 Minn. 268, 271, ), review denied (Minn. Feb.
Alan B. Fish, P. A. v. Scott Janson Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Alan B. Fish, P. A. v. Scott Janson Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Co. v. Wensmann, Inc., (citing Finden v. Klaas, 268 Minn. 268, 271, ), review denied (Minn. Feb.
In re the Marriage of: Dontrell Valerie Thornton v. Herbert Thornton, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2016
In re: The Frank John Rodriguez Sr. Trust. Minn. Ct. App. 2016
In re: The Frank John Rodriguez Sr. Trust. Minn. Ct. App. 2016
rdson, Woodbury, Minnesota (for respondent Shirley Elizondo) Considered and decided by Bjorkman, Presiding Judge; Halbrooks, Judge; and Kalitowski, Judge. UNPUBLISHED OPINION BJORKMAN, Judge Appellant challenges the denial of his motion to vacate the judgment in a trust dispute, arguing that he satisfied the four-factor test described in Finden v. Klaas, 268 Minn. 268, for reopening a judgment pursuant to Minn. R. Civ.
In re the Marriage of: Dontrell Valerie Thornton v. Herbert Thornton, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Finden v. Klaas, 268 Minn. 268, 271
Jennifer L. DeCook, Respondents/Cross-Appellants v. Olmsted Medical Center, Inc., Brenda J. Hanson, R.N., and Darlene M. Pratt, R.N., … 875 N.W.2d 263 Minn. 2016
Jennifer L. DeCook, Respondents/Cross-Appellants v. Olmsted Medical Center, Inc., Brenda J. Hanson, R.N., and Darlene M. Pratt, R.N., … 875 N.W.2d 263 Minn. 2016
The De-Cooks argue (1) that no specific test is needed other than the requirements of Rule 11.01; (2) that, if a specific test is needed to guide the court’s analysis, we should adopt the test applied to motions to set aside, a judgment for an attorney’s fáilure to comply with a procedural rule, see Finden v. Klaas, 268 Minn. 268, 271 , and (3) that they nonetheless satisfy all the factors in the Save Our Creeks test.
Joseph Molesky v. John L. Trebesch, Sheila P. Sabas Minn. Ct. App. 2016
First American Title Insurance Company v. National Title Resources Corp., dba Northwest Title Agency, Co-Appellants, Wayne Holstad Minn. Ct. App. 2016
First American Title Insurance Company v. National Title Resources Corp., dba Northwest Title Agency, Co-Appellants, Wayne Holstad Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Finden v. Klaas, 268 Minn. 268, 271