Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Anderson v. Anderson, 179 N.W.2d 718.

30 citing documents.

Solvay Hospice House, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2026
Court of Appeals Chutich, J. Dissenting, Hudson, J. Rebecca Ellen Bender, Gildea, C.J., Anderson, J. Minn. 2022
Dennis Lougee, et al., Appellants, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Gassler v. State 787 N.W.2d 575 Minn. 2010
City of Barnum v. Sabri 657 N.W.2d 201 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
City of Barnum v. Sabri 657 N.W.2d 201 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
Relief may be granted under Rule 60.02(f) for “any other reason justifying relief from the operation of the judgment.” Anderson v. Anderson, 288 Minn. 514, 518
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
Rule 60.02(f) is a residual clause to cover “unforeseen contingencies.” See Anderson v. Anderson, 288 Minn. 514, 518 , (discussing rule 60.02(6) (renumbered as 60.02(f))).
Carter v. Anderson 554 N.W.2d 110 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
Carter v. Anderson 554 N.W.2d 110 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
Anderson v. Anderson, 288 Minn. 514, 518 , -22 (1970).
Marriage of Erickson v. Erickson 506 N.W.2d 679 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
Marriage of Erickson v. Erickson 506 N.W.2d 679 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
See Anderson v. Anderson, 288 Minn. 514, 519
Dorso Trailer Sales, Inc. v. American Body & Trailer, Inc. 464 N.W.2d 551 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
Dorso Trailer Sales, Inc. v. American Body & Trailer, Inc. 464 N.W.2d 551 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
Polar cites Anderson v. Anderson, 288 Minn. 514, 519 , for the proposition that rule 60.02(f) “is not intended to allow the district court to reopen or amend judgments merely because the court feels it has committed some judicial error.” Polar further notes that it is reversible error
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
Anderson v. Anderson, 288 Minn. 514, 518
Marriage of Nelson v. Quade 413 N.W.2d 824 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Marriage of Nelson v. Quade 413 N.W.2d 824 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Anderson v. Anderson, 228 Minn. 514, 518 , (
Volkman v. Volkman 394 N.W.2d 869 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Volkman v. Volkman 394 N.W.2d 869 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
See, e.g., Anderson v. Anderson, 288 Minn. 514, 518 , (“Rule 60.02(6) is a residual clause to cover any unforeseen contingency and it is exclusive of clauses (1) through (5)”); Newman v. Fjelstad, 271 Minn. 514, 521-22 , (citing commentary on analogous federal rules stating that “clause (6) is clearly a residua
Grover v. Rilea 388 N.W.2d 766 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Grover v. Rilea 388 N.W.2d 766 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Sommers v. Thomas, 251 Minn. 461 , cited by the trial court, does state that “relief may not be had under clause (6) when the grounds for granting it fall properly under clauses (1), (2), or (3), to which the one-year limitation applies.” See also Anderson v. Anderson, 288 Minn. 514, 518 , (“Rule 60.02(6) is a residual clause to cover any unforeseen contingency and it is exclusive of clauses (1) through (5).”).
Lemkau v. Fout 385 N.W.2d 418 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Lemkau v. Fout 385 N.W.2d 418 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
See also Anderson v. Anderson, 288 Minn. 514, 518 , (clause (6) is residual and is exclusive of clauses (1) through (5)).
Nordeen v. Commissioner of Public Safety 382 N.W.2d 256 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Nordeen v. Commissioner of Public Safety 382 N.W.2d 256 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Anderson v. Anderson, 288 Minn. 514, 519 , (per curiam)
Gould v. Johnson 379 N.W.2d 643 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Gould v. Johnson 379 N.W.2d 643 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Anderson v. Anderson, 288 Minn. 514, 518
Arzt v. Arzt 361 N.W.2d 135 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Arzt v. Arzt 361 N.W.2d 135 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Anderson v. Anderson, 288 Minn. 514