Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite O'BRIEN v. Wendt, 295 N.W.2d 367.

30 citing documents.

Larson v. Gannett Co. 915 N.W.2d 485 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Larson v. Gannett Co. 915 N.W.2d 485 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
App. P. 103.03(d) ; O'Brien v. Wendt , , 370 (Minn. 1980).
In re M.O. 838 N.W.2d 577 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
In re M.O. 838 N.W.2d 577 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
1; -84 (Minn.1985); O’-70 (Minn.1980).
TRI-STATE INS. CO. OF MINN. v. Bontjes 488 N.W.2d 845 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
TRI-STATE INS. CO. OF MINN. v. Bontjes 488 N.W.2d 845 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
See O’ (30-day period to appeal order not started by notice of filing of order by clerk of court); Westling v. City of St.
Rural American Bank of Greenwald v. Herickhoff 473 N.W.2d 361 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
Rural American Bank of Greenwald v. Herickhoff 473 N.W.2d 361 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
Marriage of Hofseth v. Hofseth 456 N.W.2d 99 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
Marriage of Hofseth v. Hofseth 456 N.W.2d 99 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
104.01; O’ (definition of adverse party focuses on positions taken at trial).
Curtis v. Curtis 442 N.W.2d 173 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Curtis v. Curtis 442 N.W.2d 173 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Probst v. Holland 441 N.W.2d 836 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Probst v. Holland 441 N.W.2d 836 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
O’-70 (Minn.1980); see also Timm v. Branch, 133 Minn. 20, 23 , 157 N.W.
Parker v. Crabtree's Kitchen 404 N.W.2d 872 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Parker v. Crabtree's Kitchen 404 N.W.2d 872 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Koski v. Chicago & Northwestern Transportation Co. 386 N.W.2d 282 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Koski v. Chicago & Northwestern Transportation Co. 386 N.W.2d 282 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
See O’ (appeal of six-month-old order was timely where adverse party failed to serve notice of filing of order).
Haugen v. International Transport, Inc. 379 N.W.2d 529 Minn. 1986
Haugen v. International Transport, Inc. 379 N.W.2d 529 Minn. 1986
Rayford v. Metropolitan Transit Commission 379 N.W.2d 161 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Rayford v. Metropolitan Transit Commission 379 N.W.2d 161 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
See Rule 104.01; O’-70 (Minn.1980).
Jacobs v. Farmland Mutual Insurance Co. 377 N.W.2d 441 Minn. 1985
Jacobs v. Farmland Mutual Insurance Co. 377 N.W.2d 441 Minn. 1985
[6] The issue of "whether a plaintiff can gain rescission of a contract and punitive damages as well" but not decided because instructions on the issue of punitive damages had been submitted to the jury without objection and, therefore, became the law of the case.
Rieman v. Joubert 376 N.W.2d 681 Minn. 1985
Rieman v. Joubert 376 N.W.2d 681 Minn. 1985
52, 53 (1925) (“This construction has the merit of doing away with disputes as to whether or not a party had actual notice, and will establish a uniform rule of practice * * *.”); (service of written notice of the filing by the clerk of court does not suffice).
Haugen v. International Transport, Inc. 364 N.W.2d 484 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Haugen v. International Transport, Inc. 364 N.W.2d 484 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Appellant International Transport relies upon O’ where the plaintiffs requested numerous remedies, alleging the defendants defrauded them in a series of real estate transactions.
Rieman v. Joubert 361 N.W.2d 909 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Rieman v. Joubert 361 N.W.2d 909 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
O’ (interpreting Minn.R.Civ.App.P.