Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Conley v. Downing, 321 N.W.2d 36.

57 citing documents.

Don Magnuson, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
Co. , (“Defendant acted with diligence upon learning of the oversight.”); see also Charson v. Temple Israel , (“Charson moved with ‘due diligence’ after receiving notice of the dismissal.”); (“[Client] hired another attorney a short time after discovering that nothing had been done and that judgment had been entered against her.”); Coller v. Guardian Angels Roman Catholic Church of Chaska , (“[D]efendants’ attorney acted with due diligence once he bec
Buck Blacktop, Inc. v. Gary Contracting and Trucking Company, LLC 929 N.W.2d 12 Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Buck Blacktop, Inc. v. Gary Contracting and Trucking Company, LLC 929 N.W.2d 12 Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Co. , , 490-91 (Minn. 1997) ; Nelson v. Siebert , , 394-95 (Minn. 1988) ; Charson v. Temple Israel , , 491-92 (Minn. 1988) ; Conley v. Downing , , 40-41 (Minn. 1982).
Charlie Siegle, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Cf. Cole, d at 636 (“At the hearing, [the movant] argued that his counsel’s neglect was ‘excusable’ because the online version of the rules, on which his counsel relied, did not state that rule 5.04(a) applied to actions pending before its effective date.”); (determining that a client’s reliance on an attorney’s representation “that he was filing a brief in response to the summary judgment motion” constituted a reasonable excuse).
Susan Dianna Orr v. Rebecca Kay Britten Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Susan Dianna Orr v. Rebecca Kay Britten Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Indeed, 5 “Minnesota courts have consistently held that default caused by a party’s attorney rather than by the party himself should be excused.” -41 (Minn. 1982) (reversing district court’s denial of relief from judgment entered after attorney failed to respond to a summary-judgment motion); Finden, 268 Minn. at 271-72, d at 750-51 (reversing district court’s denial of relief from judgment entered after attorney failed to answer complaint when p
Jerry Wayne Cole v. Alexander Allen Wutzke 884 N.W.2d 634 Minn. 2016
Jerry Wayne Cole v. Alexander Allen Wutzke 884 N.W.2d 634 Minn. 2016
See, e.g., Nguyen, d at 491 (“Defendant acted with diligence upon learning of the oversight.”); Charson, d at 491 (“Charson moved with ‘due diligence’ after receiving notice of the dismissal.”); (“[Client] hired another attorney a short time after discovering that nothing had been done and that judgment had been entered against her.”); (“[D]efendants’ attorney acted with due diligence once he becam
S. Robideau Construction, Inc. v. John E. Hiber, Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. Minn. Ct. App. 2016
S. Robideau Construction, Inc. v. John E. Hiber, Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. Minn. Ct. App. 2016
from a final judgment”); 40–41 (Minn. 1982) (applying Finden factors on review of district court’s denial of motion to vacate summary judgment and stating that “[a]lthough this case 10 concerns the failure properly to defend a summary judgment motion rather than a default judgment, the sa
Shannon Fogarty v. Ciao Bella Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Shannon Fogarty v. Ciao Bella Minn. Ct. App. 2016
-41 (Minn. 1982) 6 (reversing denial of relief from summary judgment when client “relied on her attorney’s representation” that he would answer motion but he failed to do so); Coller, d at 715 (affirming denial of default judgment when the defendants’ failu
Jerry Wayne Cole v. Alexander Allen Wutzke 868 N.W.2d 925 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Jerry Wayne Cole v. Alexander Allen Wutzke 868 N.W.2d 925 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
5 than by the party himself should be excused.” Coller, d at 715; –41 (Minn. 1982) (reversing district court’s denial of relief from judgment entered after attorney failed to respond to summary-judgment motion); Finden, 268 Minn. at 271−72, d at 750−51 (reversing district court’s denial of relief from judgment entered after attorney failed to answer complaint when pa
Dorso Trailer Sales, Inc. v. American Body & Trailer, Inc. 464 N.W.2d 551 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
Dorso Trailer Sales, Inc. v. American Body & Trailer, Inc. 464 N.W.2d 551 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
Bly v. Bublitz 464 N.W.2d 531 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
Bly v. Bublitz 464 N.W.2d 531 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
Id (1986) (if a contract gives the seller a right to terminate, the seller may terminate upon proper notice unless purchaser cures the default); (“[t]he purpose of the statutory cancellation procedure is to give vendees notice of an impending cancellation and a reasonable period of time to redeem their interest”); Odegaard v. Moe, 264 Minn. 324, 328 , (the purpose of the statute is to ameliorate the harsh result of fo
Chapman v. Special School District No. 1 454 N.W.2d 921 Minn. 1990
Chapman v. Special School District No. 1 454 N.W.2d 921 Minn. 1990
Finden v. Klaas, 268 Minn. 268, 271
Western Lake Superior Sanitary District v. Interpace Corp. 454 N.W.2d 449 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
Western Lake Superior Sanitary District v. Interpace Corp. 454 N.W.2d 449 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
4.03); (summary judgment); (mechanic’s lien foreclosure sale order); Gould, (order denying motion to set aside stipulated settlement).
Hovelson v. U.S. Swim & Fitness, Inc. 450 N.W.2d 137 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
Hovelson v. U.S. Swim & Fitness, Inc. 450 N.W.2d 137 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
Hinz , 237 Minn, at 30, d at 456
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
Sand v. School Service Employees Union Local 284, pet.
Charson v. Temple Israel 419 N.W.2d 488 Minn. 1988
Charson v. Temple Israel 419 N.W.2d 488 Minn. 1988
This court has employed the Rule 60.02 analysis to grant relief in vacating a default judgment, Finden v. Klaas, 268 Minn. 268 , and in reversing a summary judgment
Hoffman v. Halter 417 N.W.2d 747 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Hoffman v. Halter 417 N.W.2d 747 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Nelson v. Nelson 415 N.W.2d 694 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Nelson v. Nelson 415 N.W.2d 694 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Soderling v. Hickok 409 N.W.2d 73 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Soderling v. Hickok 409 N.W.2d 73 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Sand v. School Service Employees Union, Local 284, pet.
Charson v. Temple Israel 405 N.W.2d 895 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Lund v. Pan American MacHines Sales 405 N.W.2d 550 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Lund v. Pan American MacHines Sales 405 N.W.2d 550 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
More recently, the supreme court found similar attorney neglect to be a
Kosbau v. Dress 400 N.W.2d 106 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Kosbau v. Dress 400 N.W.2d 106 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
See, Tarpy v. Nowicki, 286 Minn. 257, 262 , (quoting Mathwig v. Ostrand, 132 Minn. 346, 348 , 157 N.W.
Isanti County Family Services & Welfare Department Ex Rel. Edwardh v. Swanson 394 N.W.2d 180 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Isanti County Family Services & Welfare Department Ex Rel. Edwardh v. Swanson 394 N.W.2d 180 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
relieve a defendant from the consequences of his attorney’s neglect in those cases where defendant— “ * * * (a) is possessed of a reasonable defense on the merits, (b) has a reasonable excuse for his failure or neglect to answer, (c) has acted with due diligence after notice of the entry of judgment, and (d) [shows] that no substantial prejudice will result to the other party.” (quoting Finden v. Klaas, 268 Minn. 268, 271 , ).
Ayers v. Rudolph's, Inc. 392 N.W.2d 647 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Ayers v. Rudolph's, Inc. 392 N.W.2d 647 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Thomey v. Stewart 391 N.W.2d 533 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Thomey v. Stewart 391 N.W.2d 533 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Gunderson v. Lake County Board of Health 389 N.W.2d 241 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Gunderson v. Lake County Board of Health 389 N.W.2d 241 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
In reopening this matter, which established the standard regarding rule 60.02 motions to disturb summary judgment.
Pelletier Corp. v. Chas. M. Freidheim Co. 383 N.W.2d 318 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Pelletier Corp. v. Chas. M. Freidheim Co. 383 N.W.2d 318 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Finden v. Klaas, 268 Minn. 268, 271 , (vacating a default judgment); (vacating a summary judgment).
Guillaume & Associates, Inc. v. Don-John Co. 371 N.W.2d 15 Minn. Ct. App. 1985

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by