Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Zuleski v. Pipella, 245 N.W.2d 586.

27 citing documents.

Kelly Sheehy, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2026
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
“A dismissal under this rule is an exercise of discretionary authority which will be sustained on appeal absent a showing of clear abuse viewing the record in the light most favorable to the trial court’s order.” Zuleski v. Pipella, 309 Minn. 585, 586, d 586, 587 (1976); see also Johnson, d at 873 (“Ordering an involuntary dismissal pursuant to Minn. R. Civ.
Johnson v. Hunter 435 N.W.2d 821 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Johnson v. Hunter 435 N.W.2d 821 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
See Zuleski v. Pipella, 309 Minn. 585, 586 , (dismissal under Rule 41.02(1) is exercise of judicial discretion).
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
Zuleski v. Pipella, 309 Minn. 585, 586
Bentonize, Inc. v. Green 431 N.W.2d 579 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Bentonize, Inc. v. Green 431 N.W.2d 579 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
(citing Zuleski v. Pipella, 309 Minn. 585, 586 , ).
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
Zuleski v. Pipella, 309 Minn. 585, 586
Berks v. Fine 409 N.W.2d 76 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Berks v. Fine 409 N.W.2d 76 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Zuleski v. Pipella, 309 Minn. 585, 586
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
Zuleski v. Pipella, 309 Minn. 585, 586
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
In particular, they cite language in Copeland distinguishing Zuleski v. Pipella, 309 Minn. 585 , Breza v. Schmitz, 305 Minn. 537 , appeal after remand, 311 Minn. 236 , and Jeurissen v. Harbeck, 267 Minn. 559 , as cases in which failure to prosecute could not be established until the case was called for trial and the plai
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
A dismissal under rule 41.02(1) is an exercise of discretionary authority which will be “sustained on appeal absent a showing of clear abuse viewing the record in light most favorable to the trial court’s order.” Zuleski v. Pipella, 309 Minn. 585, 586 , (per curiam).
Belton v. City of Minneapolis 393 N.W.2d 244 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Belton v. City of Minneapolis 393 N.W.2d 244 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Zuleski v. Pipella, 309 Minn. 585, 586
Copeland v. Bragge 378 N.W.2d 35 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Copeland v. Bragge 378 N.W.2d 35 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
See Zuleski v. Pipella, 309 Minn. 585 , Breza v. Schmitz, 305 Minn. 537 , appeal after remand, 311 Minn. 236 , Jeurissen v. Harbeck, 267 Minn. 559
Dvoracek v. Lovely 366 N.W.2d 391 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Dvoracek v. Lovely 366 N.W.2d 391 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Zuleski v. Pipella, 309 Minn. 585, 586
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
Zuleski v. Pipella, 309 Minn. 585

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by