Cited by

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

213 citing documents.

Joseph Molesky v. John L. Trebesch, Sheila P. Sabas Minn. Ct. App. 2016
To support their claim, appellants cite Finden v. Klaas, 268 Minn. 268
Jerry Wayne Cole v. Alexander Allen Wutzke 868 N.W.2d 925 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Jerry Wayne Cole v. Alexander Allen Wutzke 868 N.W.2d 925 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Northland Temps., d at 402; see also Finden v. Klaas, 268 Minn. 268, 271–73, –51 (1964) (reversing district court’s denial of relief when all factors met); Hinz v. Northland Milk & Ice Cream Co., 237 Minn. 28, 30, d 454, 455–56 (1952) (same).2 Cole asserts that the district court failed to apply the rule-60.02 factors and that we therefore should
Ferdinand Leo Gams, Jr. v. Steven Ronald Houghton 869 N.W.2d 60 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Ferdinand Leo Gams, Jr. v. Steven Ronald Houghton 869 N.W.2d 60 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
29, 2008); see also Finden v. Klaas, 268 Minn. 268, 271 , (reaffirming the Him test).
Laxman S. Sundae v. Jacob Salhus, Stacey Smith, Ryan Naddy Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Laxman S. Sundae v. Jacob Salhus, Stacey Smith, Ryan Naddy Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Co., (citing Finden v. Klass, 268 Minn. 268, 271, ).
In re the Marriage of: Dawn Marie Mondus Loger v. Cory Scott Loger Minn. Ct. App. 2014
In re the Marriage of: Dawn Marie Mondus Loger v. Cory Scott Loger Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Finden v. Klaas, 268 Minn. 268, 270-71
TC/American Monorail, Inc. v. Custom Conveyor Corp. 840 N.W.2d 414 Minn. 2013
TC/American Monorail, Inc. v. Custom Conveyor Corp. 840 N.W.2d 414 Minn. 2013
P. 104.01 and holding that appellant's motion to amend the district court's order was not timely); Finden v. Klaas, 268 Minn. 268, 271 , -51 (1964) (interpreting Minn. R. Civ.
Westfield Insurane Co. v. Wensmann, Inc. 840 N.W.2d 438 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
Westfield Insurane Co. v. Wensmann, Inc. 840 N.W.2d 438 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
Finden v. Klaas, 268 Minn. 268, 271
Palladium Holdings, LLC v. Zuni Mortgage Loan Trust 2006-OA1 775 N.W.2d 168 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
Palladium Holdings, LLC v. Zuni Mortgage Loan Trust 2006-OA1 775 N.W.2d 168 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
The district court’s discretion is also limited by factors applied in Finden v. Klaas, 268 Minn. 268, 271 , which are used to analyze rule 60.02 motions.
Northland Temporaries, Inc. v. Turpin 744 N.W.2d 398 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
Northland Temporaries, Inc. v. Turpin 744 N.W.2d 398 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
The supreme court reaffirmed that requirement in Finden v. Klaas, 268 Minn. 268, 271-73 , -51 (1964) (reversing denial of motion to vacate because defendant met three factors and, on fourth — absence of reasonable excuse — attorney’s neglect was not attributable to defendant).
In Re the Welfare of the Children of M.L.A. 730 N.W.2d 54 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
In Re the Welfare of the Children of M.L.A. 730 N.W.2d 54 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
In civil actions, to obtain relief under Rule 60.02, a party “must establish (1) a reasonable case on the merits; (2) a reasonable excuse for the failure to act; (3) action with due diligence after entry of judgment; and (4) lack of prejudice to the opposing party.” (citing Finden v. Klaas, 268 Minn. 268, 271 , ).
Roehrdanz v. Brill 682 N.W.2d 626 Minn. 2004
Roehrdanz v. Brill 682 N.W.2d 626 Minn. 2004
District courts decide requests for relief from judgment under Rule 60.02 by the application of a four-prong test enunciated in Finden v. Klaas, 268 Minn. 268, 271
Ramsey County v. Suggs 653 N.W.2d 458 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
Ramsey County v. Suggs 653 N.W.2d 458 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
See, e.g., Finden v. Klaas, 268 Minn. 268, 271 , (addressing the requirements for relief under Minn. R. Civ.
Reid v. Strodtman 631 N.W.2d 414 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
Reid v. Strodtman 631 N.W.2d 414 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
Finden v. Klaas, 268 Minn. 268, 271
Madson v. Minnesota Mining & Manufacturing Co. 612 N.W.2d 168 Minn. 2000
Madson v. Minnesota Mining & Manufacturing Co. 612 N.W.2d 168 Minn. 2000
Appellant argues that based on her attorney’s inadvertence, the proper case authority applicable to the determination of the propriety of her Rule 60.02(a) motion is the four-part showing we delineated in Finden v. Klaas, 268 Minn. 268, 271
Imperial Premium Finance, Inc. v. GK Cab Co. 603 N.W.2d 853 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
Imperial Premium Finance, Inc. v. GK Cab Co. 603 N.W.2d 853 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
Finden v. Klaas, 268 Minn. 268, 271
McClellan v. Goldberg 568 N.W.2d 860 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
McClellan v. Goldberg 568 N.W.2d 860 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
Charson (quoting Finden v. Klaas, 268 Minn. 268, 271 , ) lists the factors a court must consider in exercising its discretion under Minn. R. Civ.
Nguyen v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. 558 N.W.2d 487 Minn. 1997
Nguyen v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. 558 N.W.2d 487 Minn. 1997
In light of the committee’s observation that the Hennepin and Ramsey County rules after which Rule 114.09 is patterned “ha[d] worked well,” as well as this court’s well-established practice of granting liberal relief when an innocent party would otherwise be prejudiced by his attorney’s neglect, see Finden v. Klaas, 268 Minn. 268, 271-72 , -51 (1964), we conclude that the limitations on vacation of judgment under Rule 114.09 were neither intended nor understood by this court to foreclose then-av
Carter v. Anderson 554 N.W.2d 110 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
Carter v. Anderson 554 N.W.2d 110 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
On appeal, the defendants argue that (1) Rule 60.02 does not allow a district court to correct judicial error; and (2) Carter failed to satisfy the test for relief from judgment set forth in Finden v. Klaas, 268 Minn. 268, 271
Kemmerer v. State Farm Insurance Companies 513 N.W.2d 838 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
Kemmerer v. State Farm Insurance Companies 513 N.W.2d 838 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
See Finden v. Klaas, 268 Minn. 268, 273 , -51 (1964) (where client is unaware of attorney’s neglect and is not personally negligent, courts will grant relief from judgment if Hinz test met).
Hellerstedt v. MacGibbon 489 N.W.2d 247 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
Hellerstedt v. MacGibbon 489 N.W.2d 247 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
We did state in Finden [v. Klaas, 268 Minn. 268, 271 , ] that in general “[u]nder basic principles of agency, such [attorney] neglect was chargeable to defendant.” However, even there we specifically scrutinized the client’s action apart from his attorney’s omissions.
Chapman v. Special School District No. 1 454 N.W.2d 921 Minn. 1990
Chapman v. Special School District No. 1 454 N.W.2d 921 Minn. 1990
Finden v. Klaas, 268 Minn. 268, 271
Bentonize, Inc. v. Green 431 N.W.2d 579 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Bentonize, Inc. v. Green 431 N.W.2d 579 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
60.02(1) “must show * * * that no substantial prejudice will result to the opponent.” Sand, d at 186 ; (“We reiterate that the burden, by application of the [Rule 60.-02(1) ] test, remains on the moving party to establish that no substantial prejudice will result to the other party.”) (citing Finden v. Klaas, 268 Minn. 268, 271 , ).
Kim v. State 426 N.W.2d 487 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Kim v. State 426 N.W.2d 487 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Cf. Finden v. Klaas, 268 Minn. 268, 272 , (delay and added expense does not, of itself, constitute prejudice to litigant’s case).
Riemer v. Zahn 420 N.W.2d 659 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Riemer v. Zahn 420 N.W.2d 659 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Finden v. Klaas, 268 Minn. 268, 272
Charson v. Temple Israel 419 N.W.2d 488 Minn. 1988
Charson v. Temple Israel 419 N.W.2d 488 Minn. 1988
This court has employed the Rule 60.02 analysis to grant relief in vacating a default judgment, Finden v. Klaas, 268 Minn. 268 , and in reversing a summary judgment
Peterson v. Skutt Ceramic Products, Inc. 417 N.W.2d 648 Minn. Ct. App. 1987