Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Kosloski v. Jones, 203 N.W.2d 401.

81 citing documents.

Alliant Ventures IX, LLC, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
Whether a default judgment should be reopened “is a matter largely within the discretion of the [district] court, and that court’s decision will not be reversed unless such discretion is abused.” see also Cole v. Wutzke , (“[W]e conclude that the district court abused its discretion by failing to properly apply the Finden test in this case.”).
Minnwest Bank, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
-03 (Minn. 1973) (finding that district court did not abuse its discretion by finding defendant “personally guilty of inexcusable neglect” when plaintiff’s attorney contacted defendant’s lawyer on “numerous occasions” asking for an answer); (ex
Larson Ventures, Inc., Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Indeed, the right to vacatur is “not absolute”; rather, it is a matter “largely within the discretion of the trial court.” E.g., Kosloski v. Jones, 295 Minn. 177, 180
Johnson v. City of Duluth 903 N.W.2d 1 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Johnson v. City of Duluth 903 N.W.2d 1 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Kosloski v. Jones, 295 Minn. 177, 180
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
Indeed, the right to vacatur is “not absolute”; rather, it is a matter “largely within the discretion of the trial court.” E.g., Kosloski v. Jones, 295 Minn. 177, 180
Jerry Wayne Cole v. Alexander Allen Wutzke 868 N.W.2d 925 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Jerry Wayne Cole v. Alexander Allen Wutzke 868 N.W.2d 925 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Kosloski v. Jones, 295 Minn. 177, 179–80
Lyon Financial Services, Inc., d/b/a U.S. Bancorp Business Equipment Finance Group with its principal offices at Marshall, Minnesota … Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Lyon Financial Services, Inc., d/b/a U.S. Bancorp Business Equipment Finance Group with its principal offices at Marshall, Minnesota … Minn. Ct. App. 2015
“The district court has broad discretion in deciding whether to grant or deny a rule 60.02 motion.” Northland Temporaries, (citing Kosloski v. Jones, 295 Minn. 177, 180, ), review denied (Minn. Apr.
Westfield Insurane Co. v. Wensmann, Inc. 840 N.W.2d 438 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
Westfield Insurane Co. v. Wensmann, Inc. 840 N.W.2d 438 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
Kosloski v. Jones, 295 Minn. 177, 180
Marlow Timberland, LLC v. County of Lake 800 N.W.2d 637 Minn. 2011
Marlow Timberland, LLC v. County of Lake 800 N.W.2d 637 Minn. 2011
P. 60.02 must meet the four-part analysis set out in Kosloski v. Jones, 295 Minn. 177, 179-80
Palladium Holdings, LLC v. Zuni Mortgage Loan Trust 2006-OA1 775 N.W.2d 168 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
Palladium Holdings, LLC v. Zuni Mortgage Loan Trust 2006-OA1 775 N.W.2d 168 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
“Whether the judgment should be opened is a matter largely within the discretion of the trial court, and that court’s decision will not be reversed unless such discretion is abused.” Kosloski v. Jones, 295 Minn. 177, 180
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
Kosloski v. Jones, 295 Minn. 177, 180
Imperial Premium Finance, Inc. v. GK Cab Co. 603 N.W.2d 853 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
Imperial Premium Finance, Inc. v. GK Cab Co. 603 N.W.2d 853 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
Kosloski v. Jones, 295 Minn. 177, 180
Midway National Bank of St. Paul v. Bollmeier 462 N.W.2d 401 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
Midway National Bank of St. Paul v. Bollmeier 462 N.W.2d 401 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
24, 1988); see also Kosloski v. Jones, 295 Minn. 177, 180 , (whether a default judgment should be reopened under Minn.R.Civ.P.
Seiberlich v. Burlington Northern Railroad 447 N.W.2d 896 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Seiberlich v. Burlington Northern Railroad 447 N.W.2d 896 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Kosloski v. Jones, 295 Minn. 177, 180
Johnson v. Hunter 447 N.W.2d 871 Minn. 1989
Johnson v. Hunter 447 N.W.2d 871 Minn. 1989
See Kosloski v. Jones, 295 Minn. 177, 180 , (default judgment).
Pearce v. Lindstrom 443 N.W.2d 857 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Pearce v. Lindstrom 443 N.W.2d 857 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Kosloski v. Jones, 295 Minn. 177, 180
Husby-Thompson Co. v. County of Freeborn 435 N.W.2d 814 Minn. 1989
Husby-Thompson Co. v. County of Freeborn 435 N.W.2d 814 Minn. 1989
In applying this rule the court borrows the four-part analysis set out in Kosloski v. Jones, 295 Minn. 177, 180 , (setting aside a default judgment), namely, the party seeking relief (a) has a reasonable claim on the merits, (b) has a reasonable excuse for failing to act timely, (c) has acted with due diligence, and (d) shows no substantial prejudice to the other party.
Zetah v. Isaacs 428 N.W.2d 96 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Zetah v. Isaacs 428 N.W.2d 96 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
See Kosloski v. Jones, 295 Minn. 177, 180 , (movant not entitled to have judgment vacated on grounds of attorney’s neglect when movant was personally guilty of inexcusable neglect); Gould, d at 647 (motion to set aside stipulated dismissal on grounds of attorney error that was brought more than one year after stipulati
Richardson v. Employers Mutual Casualty Co. 424 N.W.2d 317 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Richardson v. Employers Mutual Casualty Co. 424 N.W.2d 317 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Kosloski v. Jones, 295 Minn. 177, 180
Riemer v. Zahn 420 N.W.2d 659 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Riemer v. Zahn 420 N.W.2d 659 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Kosloski v. Jones, 295 Minn. 177, 180
State Ex Rel. Humphrey v. Ri-Mel, Inc. 417 N.W.2d 102 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
State Ex Rel. Humphrey v. Ri-Mel, Inc. 417 N.W.2d 102 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Kosloski v. Jones, 295 Minn. 177, 180
Nelson v. Siebert 411 N.W.2d 229 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Nelson v. Siebert 411 N.W.2d 229 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
See Kosloski v. Jones, 295 Minn. 177, 180
Wiethoff v. Williams 413 N.W.2d 533 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Wiethoff v. Williams 413 N.W.2d 533 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Kosloski v. Jones, 295 Minn. 177, 180
Kurak v. Control Data Corp. 410 N.W.2d 34 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Kurak v. Control Data Corp. 410 N.W.2d 34 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Whether a judgment should be opened “is a matter largely within the discretion of the trial court.” Kosloski v. Jones, 295 Minn. 177, 180
C & a Enterprises v. Carlson Tractor & Equipment Co. 408 N.W.2d 921 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
C & a Enterprises v. Carlson Tractor & Equipment Co. 408 N.W.2d 921 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Kosloski v. Jones, 295 Minn. 177, 180
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 Kosloski v. Jones, 295 Minn. 177, 180
Rose v. Neubauer 407 N.W.2d 727 Minn. Ct. App. 1987