Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Black v. Rimmer, 700 N.W.2d 521.

63 citing documents.

Christian Fitchett v. Dolezal Creative Design Build Inc. Minn. Ct. App. 2026
-26 (Minn. App. 2005) (quoting Minn. R. Civ.
In the Matter of the Complaint of Troy Scheffler Regarding Representative Joshua Heintzeman and the Committee to Elect … Minn. Ct. App. 2026
While we have a duty to accommodate self-represented litigants, they “are generally held to the same standards as attorneys.” (quotation omitted), rev. dismissed (Minn. Sept.
Brindalyn P. Foster, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
“The decision to grant or deny a motion for a default judgment lies within the discretion of the district court, and this court will not reverse absent an abuse of that discretion.” rev. dismissed (Sept.
In re the Marriage of: Minn. Ct. App. 2025
rev. dismissed (Minn. Sept.
Lydia Louise Monahan, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
rev. dismissed (Minn. Sept.
Don Magnuson, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
rev. dismissed (Minn. Sept.
Kimi Bragdon, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
“The decision to grant or deny a motion for a default judgment lies within the discretion of the district court, and this court will not reverse absent an abuse of that discretion.”
Alliant Ventures IX, LLC, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
-20 (Minn. 2016) (stating that to grant relief, “ the district court must consider, and expressly find that a party satisfied , all four of the Finden factors” (quotation omitted)); (stating that the party seeking relief “is obliged to affirmatively establish ” all four factors); see also Black v. Rimmer , (stating that to obtain relief, “all four of the factors must be present”), petition for rev. dismissed (Minn. Sept.
Christopher Villella, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2024
(quotation omitted) (identifying the specific showings, known as the “Finden factors,” that a party must make when seeking to vacate a judgment under rule 60.02(a)); d 521, 528 (Minn. App. 2005) (applying the Finden factors to a rule 60.02 motion by a self-represented litigant), rev. dismissed (Minn. Sept.
Eugene C. Banks v. Dakota County Board of Commissioners Minn. Ct. App. 2023
Eugene C. Banks v. Dakota County Board of Commissioners Minn. Ct. App. 2023
“The decision to grant or deny a motion for a default judgment lies within the discretion of the district court, and this court will not reverse absent an abuse of that discretion.” petition for rev. 3 dismissed (Minn. Sept.
Colby Lake Fourth Association, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
9 discretion.” see also Northland Temps., rev. denied (Minn. Apr.
Patrick Dinneen, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
A rule 12 motion to dismiss, which respondents Timothy Melby and Laurel Watkins -Melby filed after being served with Dinneen’s amended complaint, falls within the meaning of “otherwise defend.” (“To successfully defend against a default judgment, a party who has failed to plead and contends that he or she has otherwise defended .
Belle Plaine MHP, LLC, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
judgment by default shall be entered against that party.”); (stating that courts should support “the policy of resolving cases on their merits” when a party seeks relief from a default judgment), rev. dismissed (Minn. Sept.
Minnwest Bank, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
55.01; - 26 (Minn. App. 2005) (explaining that defendant’s “cooperation” with plaintiff “does not satisfy the requirements of ‘otherwise defend’”), rev. dismissed (Minn. Sept.
Lavonia M. Bell, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
“The decision to grant or deny a motion for a default judgment lies within the discretion of the district court, and this court will not reverse absent an abuse of that discretion.” Black v. Rimmer , rev. dismissed (Minn. Sept.
In re the Marriage of: Bryan Larry Lovas, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
Black v. Rimmer , 5 (Minn. App. 2005), rev. dismissed (Minn. Sept.
Washington Jimenez-Moncayo, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
at 360; (concluding that defendant acted with due diligence by moving to vacate default judgment five weeks after entry); Orr, 2017 WL 393779, at *3 (concluding that plaintiff acted with due diligence by moving for relief 25 days after discovery of mistake).
In re the Matter of: David Allen Engh, petitioner, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
“In general, when the only prejudicial effect of vacating a judgment is add itional expense and delay, substantial prejudice of the kind necessary to keep a judgment from being reopen ed does not exist.” (quotation omitted), review dismissed (Minn. Sept.
Mary Brown, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Nicholas J. Carney, et al., Respondents, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
“In general, when the only prejudicial effect of vacating a judgment is additional expense and delay, substantial prejudice of the kind necessary to keep a judgment from being reopened does not exist.” (quotation omitted) , review dismissed (Minn. Sept.
Laymon v. Minnesota Premier Properties, LLC 903 N.W.2d 6 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Laymon v. Minnesota Premier Properties, LLC 903 N.W.2d 6 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
(), review dismissed (Minn. Sept.
Harper & Peterson, P.L.L.C. v. John W. Seckinger Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Harper & Peterson, P.L.L.C. v. John W. Seckinger Minn. Ct. App. 2017
We have “repeatedly emphasized that pro se litigants are generally held to the same standard as attorneys and must comply with court rules.” d 521, 527 (Minn. App. 2005), review dismissed (Minn. Sept.
Susan Dianna Orr v. Rebecca Kay Britten Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Susan Dianna Orr v. Rebecca Kay Britten Minn. Ct. App. 2017
(quoting Imperial Premium Finance, ).
John Troupe v. Jeff Foster Construction, LLC Minn. Ct. App. 2017
John Troupe v. Jeff Foster Construction, LLC Minn. Ct. App. 2017
“In general, when the only prejudicial effect of vacating a judgment is additional expense and delay, substantial prejudice of the kind necessary to keep a judgment from being reopened does not exist.” (quotation omitted), review dismissed (Minn. Sept.
S. Robideau Construction, Inc. v. John E. Hiber, Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. Minn. Ct. App. 2016
In re the Marriage of: Jennifer Dawn Nyakundi v. Gilbert Ogamba Nyakundi Minn. Ct. App. 2016
In re the Guardianship/Conservatorship of: Lorraine Helen Schmidt. Minn. Ct. App. 2016
In re the Marriage of: Jennifer Dawn Nyakundi v. Gilbert Ogamba Nyakundi Minn. Ct. App. 2016
(stating this principle in a non-family context), review dismissed (Minn. Sept.
S. Robideau Construction, Inc. v. John E. Hiber, Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. Minn. Ct. App. 2016
527 (Minn. App. 2005) (stating on review of denial of motion to vacate default judgments that, “[a]lthough some accommodations may be made for pro se litigants, this court has repeatedly emphasized that pro se litigants are generally held to the same standard as attorneys and must comply with court rules” (q
In re the Guardianship/Conservatorship of: Lorraine Helen Schmidt. Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Rebecca anchors her argument on the duty of a trial court to “ensure fairness to a pro se litigant by allowing reasonable accommodation so long as there is no prejudice to the adverse party.” (noting that “some accommodations may be made for pro se litigants” (quotation omitted)).
Thomas M. Fafinski v. Jaren Johnson Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Thomas M. Fafinski v. Jaren Johnson Minn. Ct. App. 2016
review dismissed (Minn. Sept.
In re the Marriage of: Dontrell Valerie Thornton v. Herbert Thornton, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2016
In re the Marriage of: Dontrell Valerie Thornton v. Herbert Thornton, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Reasonable excuse “Neglect of the party [himself] which leads to entry of a default judgment is inexcusable, and such neglect is a proper ground for refusing to reopen a judgment.” (quotation omitted), review dismissed (Minn. Sept.
Joseph Molesky v. John L. Trebesch, Sheila P. Sabas Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Joseph Molesky v. John L. Trebesch, Sheila P. Sabas Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Shuqin Liu v. Waymouth Farms, Inc. Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Shuqin Liu v. Waymouth Farms, Inc. Minn. Ct. App. 2016
“Although some accommodations may be made for pro se litigants, this court has repeatedly emphasized that pro se litigants are 10 generally held to the same standard as attorneys and must comply with court rules.”
In re the Marriage of: Rachelle Frances Norgren v. Randy Dean Norgren Minn. Ct. App. 2015
In re the Marriage of: Rachelle Frances Norgren v. Randy Dean Norgren Minn. Ct. App. 2015
(stating that a party’s neglect that leads to an adverse judgment is inexcusable), review dismissed (Minn. Sept.
Ride Auto Company, judgment creditor v. Luis Silva Ibanez, Judgment Debtor, Johnny's LLC, garnishees Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Ride Auto Company, judgment creditor v. Luis Silva Ibanez, Judgment Debtor, Johnny's LLC, garnishees Minn. Ct. App. 2015
review dismissed (Minn. Sept.
Pearlene Willis v. Larkins Construction, LLC Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Pearlene Willis v. Larkins Construction, LLC Minn. Ct. App. 2015
We have previously held that “acting within three months is due diligence.” Kemmerer v. State Farm Ins.
OSK III, LLC v. HLI, LLC, Timothy J. Lambrecht Minn. Ct. App. 2015