Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Vrooman Floor Covering Inc. v. Dorsey, 126 N.W.2d 377.

40 citing documents.

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
Northland Temporaries, d at 402 (citing Vrooman Floor Covering Inc. v. Dorsey, 267 Minn. 318, 322 , and Hengel v. Hyatt, 312 Minn. 317, 319 , ).
Langston v. Wilson McShane Corp. 758 N.W.2d 583 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
Langston v. Wilson McShane Corp. 758 N.W.2d 583 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
See Vrooman Floor Covering Inc. v. Dorsey, 267 Minn. 318, 322 , (reversing order to reopen judgment when movant failed to show reasonable defense on merits); Hengel v. Hyatt, 312 Minn. 317, 319 , (“If no affidavit of merit or other proof of a valid defense is provided, the motion to vacate will be denied.”).
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
See Vrooman Floor Covering Inc. v. Dorsey, 267 Minn. 318, 322 , (reversing an order to reopen judgment when movant failed to show reasonable defense on merits); see also Hengel v. Hyatt, 312 Minn. 317, 319 , (“If no affidavit of merit or other proof of a valid defense is provided, the motion to vacate will be denied.”).
Petrich v. Dyke 419 N.W.2d 833 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Petrich v. Dyke 419 N.W.2d 833 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Vrooman Floor Covering Inc. v. Dorsey, 267 Minn. 318, 320
Peterson v. Skutt Ceramic Products, Inc. 417 N.W.2d 648 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Peterson v. Skutt Ceramic Products, Inc. 417 N.W.2d 648 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
for rev. denied (Minn. April 29, 1987) (citing Vrooman Floor Covering Inc. v. Dorsey, 267 Minn. 318, 320 , ).
Wiethoff v. Williams 413 N.W.2d 533 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Wiethoff v. Williams 413 N.W.2d 533 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
See Vrooman Floor Covering, Inc. v. Dorsey, 267 Minn. 318, 322
Galatovich v. Watson 412 N.W.2d 758 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Galatovich v. Watson 412 N.W.2d 758 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Vrooman Floor Covering, Inc. v. Dorsey, 267 Minn. 318, 320
Soderling v. Hickok 409 N.W.2d 73 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Soderling v. Hickok 409 N.W.2d 73 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Although some prejudice is present in every delay, Vrooman Floor Covering, Inc. v. Dorsey, 267 Minn. 318, 320 , delays prior to the date of dismissal are not considered.
Charson v. Temple Israel 405 N.W.2d 895 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Charson v. Temple Israel 405 N.W.2d 895 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
See Hengel v. Hyatt, 312 Minn. 317 , (“[i]f no affidavit of merit or other proof of a valid defense is provided, the motion to vacate will be denied”) (citing Vrooman Floor Covering, Inc. v. Dorsey, 267 Minn. 318
Arnold Johnsen Decorators, Inc. v. Holmbeck & Associates, Inc. 408 N.W.2d 919 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Arnold Johnsen Decorators, Inc. v. Holmbeck & Associates, Inc. 408 N.W.2d 919 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Although some prejudice is inherent in any delay, Vrooman Floor Covering Inc. v. Dorsey, 267 Minn. 318, 320 , there has been no showing of substantial prejudice.
Reardon Office Equipment v. Nelson 409 N.W.2d 222 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Reardon Office Equipment v. Nelson 409 N.W.2d 222 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
4) Finally, while it is true that some prejudice is inherent in every delay, Vrooman Floor Covering, Inc. v. Dorsey, 267 Minn. 318, 320 , there must be more than the added expense incurred by reason of the default proceedings and defense of the action to show substantial prejudice.
Lund v. Pan American MacHines Sales 405 N.W.2d 550 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Lund v. Pan American MacHines Sales 405 N.W.2d 550 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Although some prejudice is inherent in every delay, Vrooman Floor Covering Inc. v. Dorsey, 267 Minn. 318, 320 , we find that no substantial prejudice will result to Playskool.
Sand v. School Service Employees Union, Local 284 402 N.W.2d 183 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Sand v. School Service Employees Union, Local 284 402 N.W.2d 183 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Vrooman Floor Covering Inc. v. Dorsey, 267 Minn. 318, 320
Valley View, Inc. v. Schutte 399 N.W.2d 182 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Valley View, Inc. v. Schutte 399 N.W.2d 182 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Vrooman Floor Covering Inc. v. Dorsey, 267 Minn. 318, 320
Hill v. Tischer 385 N.W.2d 329 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Hill v. Tischer 385 N.W.2d 329 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Moreover, looking at the record as a whole, see Vrooman Floor Covering, Inc. v. Dorsey, 267 Minn. 318, 321 , pet.
Grunke v. Kloskin 355 N.W.2d 207 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Grunke v. Kloskin 355 N.W.2d 207 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Proof of a valid defense may be “presented in the answer or elsewhere in the record.” Vrooman Floor Covering Inc. v. Dorsey, 267 Minn. 318, 320
Thompson v. Spring Lake Township 257 N.W.2d 388 Minn. 1977
Thompson v. Spring Lake Township 257 N.W.2d 388 Minn. 1977
Vrooman Floor Covering, Inc. v. Dorsey, 267 Minn. 318
Hengel v. Hyatt 252 N.W.2d 105 Minn. 1977
Hengel v. Hyatt 252 N.W.2d 105 Minn. 1977
Vrooman Floor Covering, Inc. v. Dorsey, 267 Minn. 318
R & L Lumber Co. v. Summit Fidelity & Surety Co. 170 N.W.2d 594 Minn. 1969
R & L Lumber Co. v. Summit Fidelity & Surety Co. 170 N.W.2d 594 Minn. 1969
Vrooman Floor Covering Inc. v. Dorsey, 267 Minn. 318 , 126 N. W. (2d) 377 ; Sommers v. Thomas, 251 Minn. 461 , 88 N. W. (2d) 191 .
O'BRIEN v. Kemper 149 N.W.2d 487 Minn. 1967
O'BRIEN v. Kemper 149 N.W.2d 487 Minn. 1967
*208 The most recent case dealing with the issue here involved is Vrooman Floor Covering Inc. v. Dorsey, 267 Minn. 318 , 126 N. W. (2d) 377 .