Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Breza v. Schmitz, 248 N.W.2d 921.

23 citing documents.

A This Little Piggy Catering, Inc., Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2026
Kallys Albert, Sr. v. Chon Xiong, Jared J. Timmer (Progressive Claims Generalist), ... Minn. Ct. App. 2024
Kallys Albert, Sr. v. Chon Xiong, Jared J. Timmer (Progressive Claims Generalist), ... Minn. Ct. App. 2024
t a plaintiff has “forfeited [their] right to a trial of [their] case on the merits” if they “willfully and without justification or excuse refused to comply with discovery orders and deliberately and in bad faith, with the intent to delay trial, continued to refuse to cooperate with the court and defendants’ counsel to bring the case to a prompt and expeditious conclusion.” (quotation marks omitted).
In re the Marriage of: Janie Warren Berg, petitioner, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
Daniel J. Donahue, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
P. 37.02(b)(3); see, e.g., Breza v. Schmitz, 311 Minn. 236, 237
Curtis Trude, (A15-0378), (A15-1863, A15-1864), Glenwood State Bank, counterclaimant, and third party v. Peterson Earth Movers, Inc., Third … Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Curtis Trude, (A15-0378), (A15-1863, A15-1864), Glenwood State Bank, counterclaimant, and third party v. Peterson Earth Movers, Inc., Third … Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Breza v. Schmitz, 311 Minn. 236, 237
First American Title Insurance Company v. National Title Resources Corp., dba Northwest Title Agency, Co-Appellants, Wayne Holstad Minn. Ct. App. 2016
First American Title Insurance Company v. National Title Resources Corp., dba Northwest Title Agency, Co-Appellants, Wayne Holstad Minn. Ct. App. 2016
A party that “willfully and without justification or excuse” fails to comply with discovery orders effectively “forfeits the right to a trial on the merits.” State by Humphrey v. Ri-Mel, Inc., -09 (Minn. App. 1987) (citing Breza v. Schmitz, 311 Minn. 236, 237, ), review denied (Minn. Feb.
Katie Nesbit v. Antonio Arellano, Emilio Trevino. Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Katie Nesbit v. Antonio Arellano, Emilio Trevino. Minn. Ct. App. 2015
A party that “willfully and without justification or excuse” fails to comply with discovery orders effectively “forfeits the right to a trial on the merits.” Ri-Mel, d at 108-09 (citing Breza v. Schmitz, 311 Minn. 236, 237, ).
Frontier Insurance Co. v. Frontline Processing Corp. 788 N.W.2d 917 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
Frontier Insurance Co. v. Frontline Processing Corp. 788 N.W.2d 917 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
P. 37.02(b)(3); Breza v. Schmitz, 311 Minn. 236, 237
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
Breza v. Schmitz, 311 Minn. 236, 237
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 plaintiff failed to appear: In Zuleski, Breza and Jeurissen * * * the plaintiffs had filed a note of issue.
Marriage of Hoyland v. Kelly 379 N.W.2d 150 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Marriage of Hoyland v. Kelly 379 N.W.2d 150 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Cf. Breza v. Schmitz, 311 Minn. 236 , (dismissal as sanction affirmed where plaintiff willfully and without justification or excuse refused to comply with discovery orders).
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
Higgins v. Lufi 353 N.W.2d 150 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Higgins v. Lufi 353 N.W.2d 150 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
See Breza v. Schmitz, 311 Minn. 236 , O’Neil v. Corrick, 307 Minn. 497