Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Firoved v. General Motors Corporation, 152 N.W.2d 364.

113 citing documents.

Kelly Sheehy, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2026
Motors Corp., (stating that dismissal with prejudice “is the most punitive sanction w hich can be imposed” by a district court).
Bradley Dean Derksen v. Commissioner of Public Safety Minn. Ct. App. 2024
Bradley Dean Derksen v. Commissioner of Public Safety Minn. Ct. App. 2024
Motors Corp., a goal that default judgment does not advance.
Barbara Schmidt, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2024
A23-1820 Minn. Ct. App. 2024
Maple Ridge Homeowners Association, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2024
Lisa Thielen, et al., Appellants, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
Motors Corp., d 364, 368 (Minn. 1967).
John Moore, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
Motors Corp., see also Johnson v. Hunter , (holding that a dismissal with prejudice, even on a nonsubstantive ground, is an adjudication on the merits).
Patrick Takuanyi, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
County of Sherburne, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Joseph C. Honrud, et al., Respondents, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
On the other hand, “ the primary objective of the law” is to “dispose of cases on the merits,” and a default judgment completely bypasses that objective, making it, like a dismissal with prejudice, “the most punitive sanction.” Firoved v. General Motor s Corp., 277 Minn. 278, 283, d 364, 36 8 (1967); see also Chicago Greatwestern Office Condo.
William Trueblood, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
See Firoved v. Gen’l Motors Corp., 277 Minn. 278, 284, (reversing district court’s dismissal with prejudice and remanding with order to permit defendants to apply to the district court for costs and fees).
Daniel J. Donahue, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Motors Corp., 277 Minn. 278, 283
Michael Otto Hartmann v. Minnesota Department of Agriculture Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Michael Otto Hartmann v. Minnesota Department of Agriculture Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Motors Corp., 277 Minn. 278, 283
Jerry Wayne Cole v. Alexander Allen Wutzke 884 N.W.2d 634 Minn. 2016
Jerry Wayne Cole v. Alexander Allen Wutzke 884 N.W.2d 634 Minn. 2016
Motors Corp., 277 Minn. 278, 283-84, d 364, 368 (1967)); see also Finden, 268 Minn. at 272, d at 751 (noting that mere delay and added expense do not constitute substantial prejudice).
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
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
Motors Corp., 277 Minn. 278, 283
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
Motors Corp., 277 Minn. 278, 283
A & M Market LLC v. West Side Groceries, Inc., and third party v. Stryker Market, LLC, third … Minn. Ct. App. 2015
A & M Market LLC v. West Side Groceries, Inc., and third party v. Stryker Market, LLC, third … Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Motors Corp., 277 Minn. 278, 283
Katie Nesbit v. Antonio Arellano, Emilio Trevino. Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Katie Nesbit v. Antonio Arellano, Emilio Trevino. Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Motors Corp., 277 Minn. 278, 283
Joseph Dixon v. Avarto Digital Services NetZero Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Joseph Dixon v. Avarto Digital Services NetZero Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Motors Corp., 277 Minn. 278, 283
Frontier Insurance Co. v. Frontline Processing Corp. 788 N.W.2d 917 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
Frontier Insurance Co. v. Frontline Processing Corp. 788 N.W.2d 917 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
Motors Corp., 277 Minn. 278, 283
Modrow v. JP Foodservice, Inc. 656 N.W.2d 389 Minn. 2003
Modrow v. JP Foodservice, Inc. 656 N.W.2d 389 Minn. 2003
This test can be traced to our decision in Firoved v. General Motors Corp., in which we stated that the “primary factor to be considered” is prejudice, and “the factors of the amount of delay and the reasons therefor must be considered.” 277 Minn. 278, 288-84 , -69 (1967).
Minnesota Humane Society v. Minnesota Federated Humane Societies 611 N.W.2d 587 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
Minnesota Humane Society v. Minnesota Federated Humane Societies 611 N.W.2d 587 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
Firoved v. General Motors Corp., 277 Minn. 278, 283
Lindberg v. Health Partners, Inc. 599 N.W.2d 572 Minn. 1999
Altimus v. Hyundai Motor Co. 578 N.W.2d 409 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
Altimus v. Hyundai Motor Co. 578 N.W.2d 409 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
Relying on Firoved v. General Motors Corp., 277 Minn. 278, 283 , L’Abbe argues that it was an abuse of discretion to deny a voluntary dismissal because there is no demonstrable prejudice to HMA and HMC.
Sorenson v. St. Paul Ramsey Medical Center 457 N.W.2d 188 Minn. 1990
Sorenson v. St. Paul Ramsey Medical Center 457 N.W.2d 188 Minn. 1990
at 404 (quoting Firoved v. General Motors Corp., 277 Minn. 278, 283-84 , ).
Henke v. Dunham 450 N.W.2d 595 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
Henke v. Dunham 450 N.W.2d 595 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
See Firoved v. General Motors Corp., 277 Minn. 278, 283 , *598 (supreme court concluded Minn.Stat.
Johnson v. Hunter 447 N.W.2d 871 Minn. 1989
Johnson v. Hunter 447 N.W.2d 871 Minn. 1989
Even though a case dismissed with prejudice for lack of prosecution, as was the 1969 action, is disposed of on nonsub-stantive ground, such a dismissal nonetheless “operates as an adjudication on the merits,” Firoved v. General Motors Corp., 277 Minn. 278, 283 , and thus can form the basis for res judicata.
Sorenson v. St. Paul Ramsey Medical Center 444 N.W.2d 848 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Sorenson v. St. Paul Ramsey Medical Center 444 N.W.2d 848 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Firoved v. General Motors Corp., 277 Minn. 278, 283
Johnson v. Hunter 435 N.W.2d 821 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Johnson v. Hunter 435 N.W.2d 821 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Firoved v. General Motors Corp., 277 Minn. 278, 283
State v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance Co. 434 N.W.2d 6 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
State v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance Co. 434 N.W.2d 6 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Firoved v. General Motors Corporation, 277 Minn. 278, 283
Chicago Greatwestern Office Condominium Ass'n v. Brooks 427 N.W.2d 728 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Chicago Greatwestern Office Condominium Ass'n v. Brooks 427 N.W.2d 728 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
In Firoved v. General Motors Corp., 277 Minn. 278 , the Minnesota Supreme Court noted that an order for dismissal on procedural grounds runs counter to the objective of disposing of cases on the merits.