Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Marriage of Rubey v. Vannett, 714 N.W.2d 417.

93 citing documents.

Moen v. Sunstone Hotel Properties, Inc. 818 N.W.2d 573 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
This court reviews “the district court’s decision to dismiss the motion for an abuse of discretion.”
Eclipse Architectural Group, Inc. v. Lam 814 N.W.2d 692 Minn. 2012
Eclipse Architectural Group, Inc. v. Lam 814 N.W.2d 692 Minn. 2012
P. 4.02 is applicable to service of a mechanic’s lien statement “we first look to the plain language of the rule and its purpose.” see also House v. Hanson, 245 Minn. 466, 473 , (“The words of a court rule, like those of a statute, must be taken and construed in the sense in which they were understood and intended at the time the rule was promulgated.”).
In re the Welfare of J.R.B. 805 N.W.2d 895 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
In re the Welfare of J.R.B. 805 N.W.2d 895 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
See, -24 (Minn.2006) (referring to this aspect of Maxfield .
Reed v. State 793 N.W.2d 725 Minn. 2010
Reed v. State 793 N.W.2d 725 Minn. 2010
We recognized the distinction between a (holding that the 60-day deadline for hearing a new trial motion was not jurisdictional, but was instead a claim-processing rule).
Seehus v. Bor-Son Construction, Inc. 783 N.W.2d 144 Minn. 2010
Seehus v. Bor-Son Construction, Inc. 783 N.W.2d 144 Minn. 2010
403 , 163 L.Ed.2d 14 (2005) (discussing the distinction between jurisdictional rules and “claim-processing” rules); -22 (Minn.2006) (discussing the distinction between jurisdictional rules and procedural rules).
T.A. Schifsky & Sons, Inc. v. Bahr Construction, LLC 773 N.W.2d 783 Minn. 2009
T.A. Schifsky & Sons, Inc. v. Bahr Construction, LLC 773 N.W.2d 783 Minn. 2009
“In construing procedural rules, we first look to the plain language of the rule and its purpose.”
Jarvis & Sons, Inc. v. INTERNATIONAL MARINE UNDERWRITERS 768 N.W.2d 365 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
Jarvis & Sons, Inc. v. INTERNATIONAL MARINE UNDERWRITERS 768 N.W.2d 365 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
State v. Underdahl 767 N.W.2d 677 Minn. 2009
State v. Underdahl 767 N.W.2d 677 Minn. 2009
Smith v. Minnesota Department of Human Services 764 N.W.2d 388 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
Smith v. Minnesota Department of Human Services 764 N.W.2d 388 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
the supreme court discussed appellant’s failure to schedule a hearing on a motion for a new trial or amended findings within 60 days.
In re K.L.B. 759 N.W.2d 409 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
In Re Klb 759 N.W.2d 409 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
In Re Klb 759 N.W.2d 409 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
at 742 (statutes); (rules).
In re K.L.B. 759 N.W.2d 409 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
at 742 (statutes); (rules).
In Re Buckmaster 755 N.W.2d 570 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
In Re Buckmaster 755 N.W.2d 570 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
State v. Palmer 749 N.W.2d 830 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
State v. Palmer 749 N.W.2d 830 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
Marriage of Clifford v. Bundy 747 N.W.2d 363 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
Marriage of Clifford v. Bundy 747 N.W.2d 363 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
In Re the Civil Commitment of Giem 742 N.W.2d 422 Minn. 2007
In Re the Civil Commitment of Giem 742 N.W.2d 422 Minn. 2007
In Re Civil Commitment of Williams 735 N.W.2d 727 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
In Re Civil Commitment of Williams 735 N.W.2d 727 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
Moore v. Moore 734 N.W.2d 285 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
Moore v. Moore 734 N.W.2d 285 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
403, 405 , 163 L.Ed.2d 14 (2005) (discussing distinction between jurisdictional rules and "claims-processing rules”); (noting same distinction as Eberhart); -03 (Minn.App.2007) (discussing imprecise use of term "jurisdiction”), review granted (Minn. Apr.
In Re Glaxosmithkline Plc. 732 N.W.2d 257 Minn. 2007
In Re Glaxosmithkline Plc. 732 N.W.2d 257 Minn. 2007
In Re the Civil Commitment of Giem 727 N.W.2d 198 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
In Re the Civil Commitment of Giem 727 N.W.2d 198 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
P. 59.03 “is a procedural tool and does not divest the district court of jurisdiction.”
Johnson Ex Rel. Johnson v. Johnson 726 N.W.2d 516 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
Johnson Ex Rel. Johnson v. Johnson 726 N.W.2d 516 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
Weston v. McWilliams & Assocs., (statutes); (rules).
COMMANDEUR LLC v. Howard Hartry, Inc. 724 N.W.2d 508 Minn. 2006
COMMANDEUR LLC v. Howard Hartry, Inc. 724 N.W.2d 508 Minn. 2006
Mercer v. Andersen 715 N.W.2d 114 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
Mercer v. Andersen 715 N.W.2d 114 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
403, 403-05 , 163 L.Ed.2d 14 (2005) (distinguishing between rules governing subject matter jurisdiction and inflexible claims-processing rules); , 2006 WL 1171857, at *4 (Minn. May 4, 2006) (discussing jurisdictional and claims-processing rules); -89 (Minn.App.2005) (noting that statute of limitations “prescribe[s] a period within which a right may be enforced and after which a remedy is unavail

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by