Cited by

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

113 citing documents.

Chisholm v. Foley 427 N.W.2d 278 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Chisholm v. Foley 427 N.W.2d 278 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
See Firoved v. General Motors Corp., 277 Minn. 278, 283
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
See also Firoved v. General Motors Corp., 277 Minn. 278, 284 , (defendants are entitled to weight of policy that seeks to prevent unreasonable delays in absence of a showing of a particular prejudice).
State Ex Rel. Humphrey v. Ri-Mel, Inc. 417 N.W.2d 102 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Wherley v. Foss 416 N.W.2d 463 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Wherley v. Foss 416 N.W.2d 463 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Firoved v. General Motors Corporation, 277 Minn. 278, 283-84
State Ex Rel. Humphrey v. Ri-Mel, Inc. 417 N.W.2d 102 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
see also Firoved v. General Motors Corp., 277 Minn. 278
Collins v. Cochrane and Bresnahan, P.A. 415 N.W.2d 715 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Collins v. Cochrane and Bresnahan, P.A. 415 N.W.2d 715 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Firoved v. General Motors Corp., 277 Minn. 278, 284 , (emphasis added).
Ed H. Anderson Co. v. A.P.I., Inc. 411 N.W.2d 254 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Ed H. Anderson Co. v. A.P.I., Inc. 411 N.W.2d 254 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Firoved v. General Motors Corp., 277 Minn. 278, 283
Charson v. Temple Israel 405 N.W.2d 895 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
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
The primary factor to be considered in dismissing is “the prejudicial effect of the order upon the parties to the action.” Firoved v. General Motors Corp., 277 Minn. 278, 283
Midwest Federal Savings & Loan Association of Minneapolis v. West Bend Mutual Insurance Co. 407 N.W.2d 690 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Midwest Federal Savings & Loan Association of Minneapolis v. West Bend Mutual Insurance Co. 407 N.W.2d 690 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Firoved v. General Motors Corp., 277 Minn. 278, 283
Ryan v. Ballentine VFW Post No. 246 407 N.W.2d 105 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Ryan v. Ballentine VFW Post No. 246 407 N.W.2d 105 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
(1) the “ ‘primary objective of the law to dispose of cases on the merits,’ ” and (2) a trial court’s discretion “ ‘to enforce calendar rules, to prevent unnecessary and inexcusable delays, and to promote the public interest in keeping dockets free of stale claims.’ ” Housing & (quoting Firoved v. General Motors Corp., 277 Minn. 278, 283-84 , -69 (1967)).
Lampert Lumber Co. v. Joyce 405 N.W.2d 423 Minn. 1987
Lampert Lumber Co. v. Joyce 405 N.W.2d 423 Minn. 1987
See, e.g., Firoved v. General Motors Corp., 277 Minn. 278 , (trial court properly dismissed plaintiff’s action under Rule 41.02(1) for refusal to proceed with trial as directed by the court, but dismissal, under the circumstances, should have been without prejudice).
Lampert Lumber Co. v. Joyce 396 N.W.2d 75 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Lampert Lumber Co. v. Joyce 396 N.W.2d 75 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Appellant argues the trial court should have dismissed with prejudice in the interests of judicial economy and because “the primary objective of the law [is] to dispose of cases on the merits.” Firoved v. General Motors Corporation, 277 Minn. 278, 283
Keefe v. Cargill, Inc. 393 N.W.2d 425 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Keefe v. Cargill, Inc. 393 N.W.2d 425 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
In Firoved v. General Motors Corp., 277 Minn. 278 , the court stated: An order of dismissal on procedural grounds runs counter to the primary objective of the law to dispose of cases on the merits.
Belton v. City of Minneapolis 393 N.W.2d 244 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Kraushaar v. Austin Medical Clinic P.A. 393 N.W.2d 217 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Kraushaar v. Austin Medical Clinic P.A. 393 N.W.2d 217 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
In Firoved v. General Motors Corp., 277 Minn. 278 , the supreme court reversed a trial court’s dismissal of a plaintiff’s cause of action for failure to prosecute, noting that “[responsibility for such delays as can be charged to plaintiff were not caused by his personal neglect but by the neglect and delinquencies of his counsel.” Id.
Belton v. City of Minneapolis 393 N.W.2d 244 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Cf. Firoved v. General Motors Corp., 277 Minn. 278, 283 , (under extraordinary circumstances a dismissal with prejudice might be justified even though no prejudice to defendant is shown).
Dennie v. Metropolitan Medical Center 387 N.W.2d 401 Minn. 1986
Dennie v. Metropolitan Medical Center 387 N.W.2d 401 Minn. 1986
This court’s position on the issue was best expressed in Firoved v. General Motors Corp., 277 Minn. 278, 283-84 , : An order of dismissal on procedural grounds runs counter to the primary objective of the law to dispose of cases on the merits.
Jadwin v. City of Dayton 379 N.W.2d 194 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Jadwin v. City of Dayton 379 N.W.2d 194 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
inexcusable delays, and to promote the public interest in keeping court dockets free of stale claims.” * * On the other hand, “[a]n order of dismissal on procedural grounds runs counter to the primary objective of the law to dispose of cases on the merits.” (quoting Firoved v. General Motors Corp., 277 Minn. 278, 283-84 , -69 (1967)).
Copeland v. Bragge 378 N.W.2d 35 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Copeland v. Bragge 378 N.W.2d 35 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
(quoting Firoved v. General Motors Corp., 277 Minn. 278, 283-84 , -69 (1967)).
Marriage of Sudheimer v. Sudheimer 372 N.W.2d 792 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Marriage of Sudheimer v. Sudheimer 372 N.W.2d 792 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
On the one hand, “a broad measure of discretion must be left to trial judges to enforce calendar rules, to prevent unnecessary and inexcusable delays, and to promote the public interest in keeping court dockets free of stale claims.” Firoved v. General Motors Corp., 277 Minn. 278, 284
Dennie v. Metropolitan Medical Center 369 N.W.2d 552 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Dennie v. Metropolitan Medical Center 369 N.W.2d 552 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
ANALYSIS In Firoved v. General Motors Corporation, 277 Minn. 278 , the Minnesota Supreme Court reversed a trial court’s pretrial dismissal of plaintiff’s action on the merits, noting: Since a dismissal with prejudice operates as an adjudication on the merits, it is the most punitive sanction which can be imposed for noncompliance with the rules * * *.
Bio-Line Inc. v. Wilfley 365 N.W.2d 338 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Bio-Line Inc. v. Wilfley 365 N.W.2d 338 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
at 666 (citing Firoved v. General Motors Corp., 277 Minn. 278, 283 , ).
Reichert v. Union Fidelity Life Insurance Co. 360 N.W.2d 664 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Reichert v. Union Fidelity Life Insurance Co. 360 N.W.2d 664 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Firoved v. General Motors Corp., 277 Minn. 278, 283
State, Department of Public Safety v. Johnson 356 N.W.2d 388 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
State, Department of Public Safety v. Johnson 356 N.W.2d 388 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Firoved v. General Motors Corp., 277 Minn. 278
Housing & Redevelopment Authority of the City of Saint Paul v. Kotlar 352 N.W.2d 497 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Housing & Redevelopment Authority of the City of Saint Paul v. Kotlar 352 N.W.2d 497 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
On the one hand, “a broad measure of discretion must be left to trial judges to enforce calendar rules, to prevent unnecessary and inexcusable delays, and to promote the public interest in keeping court dockets free of stale claims.” Firoved v. General Motors Cory., 277 Minn. 278, 284
Scherer v. Hanson 270 N.W.2d 23 Minn. 1978
Scherer v. Hanson 270 N.W.2d 23 Minn. 1978
No. 271, 296 Minn. 413, 414 , Firoved v. General Motors Corp., 277 Minn. 278, 282
Peters v. Waters Instruments, Inc. 251 N.W.2d 114 Minn. 1977