Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite DeMars v. Robinson King Floors, Inc., 256 N.W.2d 501.

24 citing documents.

Kelly Sheehy, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2026
The supreme court has recognized courts’ interests in “reasonable diligence in bringing litigation to a close” and in “not allow[ing] parties to delay suits for an unreasonable length of time.” DeMars v. Robinson King Floors, Inc.
State of Minnesota Office of the Attorney General v. Madison Equities, Inc. Minn. 2026
State of Minnesota Office of the Attorney General v. Madison Equities, Inc. Minn. 2026
205, 206 (Minn. 1908) (holding that tolling did not apply because the plaintiff “had the legal right at all times to bring the pending action to trial and judgment” and “not only failed so to do, but [also] procured a dismissal of the action without any determination of her alleged rights”); see also DeMars v. Robinson King Floors, Inc., (citing Holmgren for the proposition that the plaintiff’s failure to seek relief on the merits in an earlier action would not toll the limitations period for th
Eugene and Sandra Alexander, et al., Plaintiffs, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
Caselaw starts with the premise that “neither courts nor administrative agencies, in the exercise of their legal or equitable powers, possess the authority to extend or to modify the period of limitation prescribed by statute.” DeMars v. Robinson King Floors, Inc.
John Puetz, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
20, 1991); (stating that the commencement of an action arrests the running of the applicable statute of limitations); see also Holmgren v. Isaackson, 116 N.W.
Bradley Lewis, et al., Respondents, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
Finally, DeMars v. Robinson King Floors, Inc., held that “[n]either courts nor administrative agencies, in the exercise of their legal or equitable powers, possess the authority to extend or to modify the period of limitation prescribed by statute.” 15
Commonwealth Land Title Insurance Company v. Historic Ivy Tower, LLC Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Commonwealth Land Title Insurance Company v. Historic Ivy Tower, LLC Minn. Ct. App. 2014
ends the case and ousts the court of jurisdiction thereafter to enter judgment on the merits.” Application of Mitchell, 216 Minn. 368, 376, cf. DeMars v. Robinson King Floors, Inc., (referring to “the court of appeals [as] los[ing] jurisdiction by virtue of a voluntary dismissal”).
Sanchez v. State 816 N.W.2d 550 Minn. 2012
Sanchez v. State 816 N.W.2d 550 Minn. 2012
We have held that courts have no power to extend or modify statutory limitations periods because “[w]hat may be a reasonable time [to bring an action] depends upon the sound discretion of the legislature in the light of the nature of the subject and the purpose of the enactment.” 13 DeMars v. Robinson King Floors, Inc., see also Johnson v. Winthrop Labs.
Gullickson v. Lutsen Resort, Inc. 474 N.W.2d 216 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
Gullickson v. Lutsen Resort, Inc. 474 N.W.2d 216 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
Co. v. Reed Cleaners, 265 Minn. 503 , and DeMars v. Robinson King Floors, Inc.
Sherek v. Independent School District No. 699 464 N.W.2d 582 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
Sherek v. Independent School District No. 699 464 N.W.2d 582 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
DeMars v. Robinson King Floors, Inc.
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
DeMars v. Robinson King Floors, Inc.
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
(citing DeMars v. Robinson King Floors, Inc., ).
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
DeMars v. Robinson King Floors, Inc.
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 DeMars v. Robinson King Floors, Inc., (the trial court has the discretion to dismiss a suit where a plaintiff’s failure to exercise reasonable diligence is unexcused and the nature of the suit requires such diligence).
Dvoracek v. Lovely 366 N.W.2d 391 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Dvoracek v. Lovely 366 N.W.2d 391 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
DeMars v. Robinson King Floors, Inc.

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by