Cited by

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

81 citing documents.

Rose v. Neubauer 407 N.W.2d 727 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Whether a judgment should be reopened under Rule 60.02 “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.” (quoting Kosloski v. Jones, 295 Minn. 177, 180 , ).
Havemeier v. Karlstad Equipment & Farms 406 N.W.2d 581 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Havemeier v. Karlstad Equipment & Farms 406 N.W.2d 581 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Kosloski v. Jones, 295 Minn. 177, 179-80
Lund v. Pan American MacHines Sales 405 N.W.2d 550 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Lund v. Pan American MacHines Sales 405 N.W.2d 550 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
In Kosloski v. Jones, 295 Minn. 177, 180 , the supreme court noted the trial court’s finding that the defendant was personally guilty of inexcusable neglect, thus failing to meet the reasonable excuse requirement.
Ayers v. Rudolph's, Inc. 392 N.W.2d 647 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Ayers v. Rudolph's, Inc. 392 N.W.2d 647 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Kosloski v. Jones, 295 Minn. 177, 180
Gunderson v. Lake County Board of Health 389 N.W.2d 241 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Gunderson v. Lake County Board of Health 389 N.W.2d 241 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
See Kosloski v. Jones, 295 Minn. 177, 180
Howard v. Frondell 387 N.W.2d 205 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Howard v. Frondell 387 N.W.2d 205 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Kosloski v. Jones, 295 Minn. 177, 180
Hill v. Tischer 385 N.W.2d 329 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Hill v. Tischer 385 N.W.2d 329 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
In applying Rule 60.-02 to a default judgment, “[wjhether 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 , (citations omitted).
Spicer v. Carefree Vacations, Inc. 379 N.W.2d 728 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Spicer v. Carefree Vacations, Inc. 379 N.W.2d 728 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Kosloski v. Jones, 295 Minn. 177, 180 , Guillaume & Associates, (Minn.Ct.
Guillaume & Associates, Inc. v. Don-John Co. 371 N.W.2d 15 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Guillaume & Associates, Inc. v. Don-John Co. 371 N.W.2d 15 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
In interpreting this rule as applied to default judgments, the Minnesota Supreme Court has indicated that whether a default 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
Grunke v. Kloskin 355 N.W.2d 207 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Grunke v. Kloskin 355 N.W.2d 207 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
d at 715 ; Kosloski v. Jones, 295 Minn. 177, 180
Conley v. Downing 321 N.W.2d 36 Minn. 1982
Conley v. Downing 321 N.W.2d 36 Minn. 1982
See Nielsen, Stock & Blackburn v. Financial Acceptance Corp., 299 Minn. 81 , Kosloski v. Jones, 295 Minn. 177 , Taylor v. Steinke, 295 Minn. 244 , Hinz v. Northland Milk & Ice Cream Co., 237 Minn. 28 , D. McFarland & W. Keppel, supra, at 72.
Coller v. Guardian Angels Roman Catholic Church of Chaska 294 N.W.2d 712 Minn. 1980
Coller v. Guardian Angels Roman Catholic Church of Chaska 294 N.W.2d 712 Minn. 1980
Kosloski v. Jones, 295 Minn. 177 , Roinestad v. McCarthy, 249 Minn. 396
Betts v. M. I. L. Realty Corp. 269 N.W.2d 42 Minn. 1978
Betts v. M. I. L. Realty Corp. 269 N.W.2d 42 Minn. 1978
Those principles were restated in Kosloski v. Jones, 295 Minn. 173, 179 , : “This court has repeatedly said that in keeping with the spirit of Rule 60.02, in furtherance of justice, and pursuant to a liberal policy conducive to the trial of causes on their merits, the court should relieve a defendant from the consequences of his attorney’s neglect in those cases where defendant (
Spannaus v. Arrowood 230 N.W.2d 33 Minn. 1975
In Re Estate of Bush 230 N.W.2d 33 Minn. 1975
In Re Estate of Bush 230 N.W.2d 33 Minn. 1975
[21] Simchuck v. Fullerton, 299 Minn. 91 , Schroeder v. Jesco, Inc., 296 Minn. 447 , Kosloski v. Jones, 295 Minn. 177 , Ryan v. Ryan, 292 Minn. 52
Spannaus v. Arrowood 230 N.W.2d 33 Minn. 1975
1971, § 525.49].” In its brief, the foundation suggested that the trial judge’s position of presiding judge in the district court litigation between the class A and class B directors “might well have colored his views.” Simchuck v. Fullerton, 299 Minn. 91 , Schroeder v. Jesco, Inc. 296 Minn. 447 , Kosloski v. Jones, 295 Minn. 177 , Ryan v. Ryan, 292 Minn. 52
Nielsen, Stock & Blackburn v. Financial Acceptance Corp. of Minnesota, Inc. 216 N.W.2d 693 Minn. 1974
Nielsen, Stock & Blackburn v. Financial Acceptance Corp. of Minnesota, Inc. 216 N.W.2d 693 Minn. 1974
Kosloski v. Jones, 295 Minn. 177 , Croes v. Handlos, 225 Minn. 247

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by