Cited by

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

63 citing documents.

OSK III, LLC v. HLI, LLC, Timothy J. Lambrecht Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Nevertheless, while the court may make some accommodations for a pro se party, a pro se party is “generally held to the same standard as attorneys and must comply with court rules.”
Steven Charles Lind v. William Guenther Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Steven Charles Lind v. William Guenther Minn. Ct. App. 2015
See, e.g., Taylor v. Steinke, 295 Minn. 244, 246, (“[I]t must be remembered that the goal of all litigation is to bring about judgments after trials on the merits and for this reason courts should be liberal in opening default judgments.” (quotation omitted)); (“Courts should liberally apply the[] factors to further the policy of resolving cases on their merits.”), review dismissed (Minn. Sept.
Laxman S. Sundae v. Jacob Salhus, Stacey Smith, Ryan Naddy Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Laxman S. Sundae v. Jacob Salhus, Stacey Smith, Ryan Naddy Minn. Ct. App. 2015
advance the policy favoring resolution of cases on the merits”), aff’d, Westfield, d at 449 (stating that “the goal of litigation is to reach a resolution of disputes on the merits”); (“Courts should liberally apply [the Finden] factors to further the policy of resolving cases on their merits.”), review dismissed (Minn. Sept.
Joseph Dixon v. Avarto Digital Services NetZero Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Joseph Dixon v. Avarto Digital Services NetZero Minn. Ct. App. 2014
review dismissed (Minn. Sept.
In re the Marriage of: Dawn Marie Mondus Loger v. Cory Scott Loger Minn. Ct. App. 2014
In re the Marriage of: Dawn Marie Mondus Loger v. Cory Scott Loger Minn. Ct. App. 2014
d 521, 525 (Minn. App. 2005), review dismissed (Minn. Sept.
Langston v. Wilson McShane Corp. 758 N.W.2d 583 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
Langston v. Wilson McShane Corp. 758 N.W.2d 583 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
When the only prejudicial effect of vacating a default judgment is additional expense and delay, “substantial prejudice of the kind necessary to keep a judgment from being reopened does not exist.”
Northland Temporaries, Inc. v. Turpin 744 N.W.2d 398 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
Northland Temporaries, Inc. v. Turpin 744 N.W.2d 398 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
In reaching this conclusion

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by