Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Scherer v. Hanson, 270 N.W.2d 23.

28 citing documents.

Natalie Synhaivsky, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
an adjudication on the merits,” Bonhiver v. Fugelso, Porter, Simich & Whiteman, Inc., (quotation omitted) , it is only appropriate when a district court determines that (1) “the delay prejudiced the defendant” and (2) “the delay was unreasonable and inexcusable,” Modrow v. JP Foodservice, Inc., 5 ().
In the Matter of the Bette R. Peterson Revocable Trust, Dated August 8, 1996, as Amended, In the … Minn. Ct. App. 2022
Penelope Isleman, et al., Appellants, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
Modrow v. JP Foodservice, Inc. 656 N.W.2d 389 Minn. 2003
Modrow v. JP Foodservice, Inc. 656 N.W.2d 389 Minn. 2003
Marriage of Brazinsky v. Brazinsky 610 N.W.2d 707 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
Marriage of Brazinsky v. Brazinsky 610 N.W.2d 707 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
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
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
Even though dismissal under Rule 41.-02(1) is discretionary, trial courts must follow specific guidelines when considering such motions.
Midwest Federal Savings & Loan Association of Minneapolis v. West Bend Mutual Insurance Co. 407 N.W.2d 690 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Midwest Federal Savings & Loan Association of Minneapolis v. West Bend Mutual Insurance Co. 407 N.W.2d 690 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
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
Murphy v. Bergo 400 N.W.2d 387 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Dorenkemper v. City of Eden Prairie 394 N.W.2d 546 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Dorenkemper v. City of Eden Prairie 394 N.W.2d 546 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
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
Dismissal for failure to prosecute is “appropriate only when (1) the delay prejudiced the defendants; and (2) the delay was unreasonable and inexcusable.” Bonhiver, d at 144 (emphasis in original) ( (per curiam)).
Copeland v. Bragge 378 N.W.2d 35 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Copeland v. Bragge 378 N.W.2d 35 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
the Minnesota Supreme Court held that the trial court was presented with a reasonable excuse when the plaintiffs failure to prosecute was due to the neglect of plaintiffs former counsel in handling the case.
Dvoracek v. Lovely 366 N.W.2d 391 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Dvoracek v. Lovely 366 N.W.2d 391 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
(per curiam) (footnote omitted).
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
Bonhiver v. Fugelso, Porter, Simich & Whiteman, Inc. 355 N.W.2d 138 Minn. 1984
Bonhiver v. Fugelso, Porter, Simich & Whiteman, Inc. 355 N.W.2d 138 Minn. 1984