Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Simons v. Schiek's, Inc., 145 N.W.2d 548.

39 citing documents.

A22-0300 Minn. 2023
See Evans, d at 229 (affirming the denial of a motion under Rule 60.02 as untimely when it was filed 4 years after this court affirmed the denial of the movant’s petition for postconviction relief); Simons v. Schiek’s, Inc. , (suggesting that a court must “consider with some hesitation” a delay of 3 years, but leaving that discretion to the district court); cf. Osterhus v. King Constr.
Buck Blacktop, Inc. v. Gary Contracting and Trucking Company, LLC 929 N.W.2d 12 Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Buck Blacktop, Inc. v. Gary Contracting and Trucking Company, LLC 929 N.W.2d 12 Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Simons v. Schiek's, Inc. , 275 Minn. 132 , , 552 (Minn. 1966) (interpreting rule 60.02(6), predecessor of rule 60.02(f) ).
In re the Civil Commitment of Moen 837 N.W.2d 40 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
In re the Civil Commitment of Moen 837 N.W.2d 40 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
P. 60.02, which depends on “all of the facts and circumstances involved,” Simons v. Schiek's Inc., 275 Minn. 132, 138
Bode v. Minnesota Department of Natural Resources 594 N.W.2d 257 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
Bode v. Minnesota Department of Natural Resources 594 N.W.2d 257 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
Kansas City S. Ry., 624 F.2d at 826 (when challenge is to erroneous interpretation of statutory jurisdiction, the policy favoring certainty in judicial resolution of controversies prevails); see Simons v. Schiek’s, Inc., 275 Minn. 132 , (“we must consider with some hesitation vacating a judgment entered * * * almost three years earlier”).
Majestic Inc. v. Berry 593 N.W.2d 251 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
Majestic Inc. v. Berry 593 N.W.2d 251 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
See Simons v. Schiek’s, Inc., 275 Minn. 132, 136 , (“the policy of the law is to give finality to judgments”); Hawley v. Knott, 178 Minn. 225, 229 , 226 N.W.
Marriage of Hestekin v. Hestekin 587 N.W.2d 308 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
Marriage of Hestekin v. Hestekin 587 N.W.2d 308 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
See, , 165—66 (Minn.1989) (fraud); (fraud in taking advantage of spouse’s mental and emotional condition); Simons v. Schiek’s, Inc., 275 Minn. 132 , (mutual mistake); Thunderbird Motel Corp. v. County of Hennepin, 289 Minn. 239 , (excusable mistake or misunderstanding); Fagerstrom v. Cotton, 188 Minn. 245, 246 , 246 N.W.
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
Simons v. Schiek’s, Inc., 275 Minn. 132, 138 , Sommers v. Thomas, 251 Minn. 461, 467
Western Lake Superior Sanitary District v. Interpace Corp. 454 N.W.2d 449 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
Western Lake Superior Sanitary District v. Interpace Corp. 454 N.W.2d 449 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
See Simons v. Schiek’s, Inc., 275 Minn. 132
Hovelson v. U.S. Swim & Fitness, Inc. 450 N.W.2d 137 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
Hovelson v. U.S. Swim & Fitness, Inc. 450 N.W.2d 137 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
Simon’s v. Shiek’s, Inc., 275 Minn. 132, 139 , (Otis, J., dissenting); -37 (Minn.Ct.App.1987) (meager evidence supporting award of damages would result in harsh penalty on private-party appellant); (failure to prove elements of liabili
Zetah v. Isaacs 428 N.W.2d 96 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Zetah v. Isaacs 428 N.W.2d 96 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Simons v. Schiek’s, Inc., 275 Minn. 132, 138
Wiethoff v. Williams 413 N.W.2d 533 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Wiethoff v. Williams 413 N.W.2d 533 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Simon’s v. *537 Schiek’s, Inc., 275 Minn. 132 , (Otis, J., dissenting).
Haukland v. Peterson 396 N.W.2d 79 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Haukland v. Peterson 396 N.W.2d 79 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
In Simons v. Shiek’s, Inc., 275 Minn. 132, 138 , the supreme court recognized that the impossibility of compliance with the one-year requirement under subd.
Qualy v. MacDonald 395 N.W.2d 423 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Qualy v. MacDonald 395 N.W.2d 423 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Simons v. Schiek’s, 275 Minn. 132, 138
Grover v. Rilea 388 N.W.2d 766 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Grover v. Rilea 388 N.W.2d 766 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
*768 However, in Simons v. Schiek’s, Inc., 275 Minn. 132, 138, the supreme court created a narrow exception to the general rule: It seems reasonable to us that clause (6) was included under Rule 60.02 to permit the court to grant some justifiable relief under certain circumstances, even though the appeal time had expired under clause (1).
Lemkau v. Fout 385 N.W.2d 418 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Lemkau v. Fout 385 N.W.2d 418 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Appellant relies on Simons v. Schiek’s, 275 Minn. 132
Pelletier Corp. v. Chas. M. Freidheim Co. 383 N.W.2d 318 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Pelletier Corp. v. Chas. M. Freidheim Co. 383 N.W.2d 318 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Simons v. Schiek’s, Inc., 275 Minn. 132, 138
Marriage of Lindsey v. Lindsey 369 N.W.2d 26 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Marriage of Lindsey v. Lindsey 369 N.W.2d 26 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
“It seems reasonable to us that clause (6) was included under Rule 60.02 to permit the court to grant some justifiable relief under certain circumstances, even though the time for appeal had expired under clause (1).” Simons v. Schiek’s, Inc., 275 Minn. 132, 138
Marriage of Carlson v. Carlson 371 N.W.2d 591 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Marriage of Carlson v. Carlson 371 N.W.2d 591 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
The Sommers rationale was first expanded in this jurisdiction in the case of Simons v. Schiek’s, 275 Minn. 132
Schmidt v. Smith 216 N.W.2d 669 Minn. 1974
Schmidt v. Smith 216 N.W.2d 669 Minn. 1974
“To permit them [release settlements] to be vacated except for the most compelling reason creates ‘uncertainty, chaos, and confusion’ with respect to future dispositions, and is a disservice to other litigants whose matters are thereby delayed.” Simons v. Schiek’s, Inc. 275 Minn. 132, 139 , (Mr. Justice Otis, dissenting).
Anderson v. Anderson 179 N.W.2d 718 Minn. 1970
Anderson v. Anderson 179 N.W.2d 718 Minn. 1970
Newman v. Fjelstad, 271 Minn. 514 , 137 N. W. (2d) 181 ; Simons v. Schiek’s, Inc. 275 Minn. 132 , 145 N. W. (2d) 548 .