Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite In Re the Welfare of S.M.E., 725 N.W.2d 740.

39 citing documents.

Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, Respondent, vs. True Gravity Ventures, LLC, et al., Respondents, Astra Genstar ... Minn. 2025
Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, Respondent, vs. True Gravity Ventures, LLC, et al., Respondents, Astra Genstar ... Minn. 2025
And we have accepted jurisdiction over a late appeal where governing procedural rules presented the “risk of confusion.” see also In re Welfare of Child.
In re the Marriage of: Asma Javed v. Rizwan Siwani Minn. Ct. App. 2024
In re the Marriage of: Asma Javed v. Rizwan Siwani Minn. Ct. App. 2024
Jacqueline Blakey, Jerry Blakey v. Javonda Jones, Gina Alexander, ... Minn. 2023
Jacqueline Blakey, Jerry Blakey v. Javonda Jones, Gina Alexander, ... Minn. 2023
“When construing procedural rules, we look to the plain language of the rule and its purpose.”
In the Matter of the Welfare of: D. J. F.-D., Child. Minn. Ct. App. 2023
Stern 1011 First Street South, LLC, et al., Minn. 2022
The governing procedural rules here do not present the “risk of confusion” that prompted us to accept jurisdiction over an untimely appeal in nor could the Stern/Haberman parties “reasonably understand” the clear direction from Advisory Comments to Minn. R. Civ.
Minn. 2020
(noting that the court “interpret[s] procedural rules de novo”) .
Joel S. Rabbe, et al., Appellants, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
A18-1851 Minn. Ct. App. 2019
In the Matter of Krista Ann Dickenson and o/b/o Minor Children, petitioner, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
In re Welfare of the Child of R.K. 901 N.W.2d 156 Minn. 2017
In re Welfare of the Child of R.K. 901 N.W.2d 156 Minn. 2017
“We interpret procedural rules de novo.”
State v. Willis 898 N.W.2d 642 Minn. 2017
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
“We review a district court’s decision to allow a motion for reconsideration for an abuse of discretion.” Goerke Family P’–53 (Minn. App. 2014) ().
In the Matter of the WELFARE OF C.J.H., Child 878 N.W.2d 15 Minn. 2016
In the Matter of the WELFARE OF C.J.H., Child 878 N.W.2d 15 Minn. 2016
“When construing procedural rules, we look to the plain language of the rule and its purpose.”
State of Minnesota v. Wayne Keith Parmenter Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Wayne Keith Parmenter Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Goerke Family Partnership, Donald Shelstad v. Lac qui Parle-Yellow Bank Watershed District, William Croatt 857 N.W.2d 50 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Goerke Family Partnership, Donald Shelstad v. Lac qui Parle-Yellow Bank Watershed District, William Croatt 857 N.W.2d 50 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
(stating that motions for reconsideration “are considered only at the district court’s discretion”); -18 (Minn. App. 2000) (concluding that district court did not abuse its discretion by allowing motion to reconsider and reversing its earlier order imposing sa
In re the Marriage of: Kenneth M. Kuller v. Elizabeth A. Kuller Minn. Ct. App. 2014
In re the Marriage of: Kenneth M. Kuller v. Elizabeth A. Kuller Minn. Ct. App. 2014
(stating that “[w]hile certain post-decision motions extend the time to appeal until those motions have been decided, motions for reconsideration do not”).
Laura L. Walsh v. U.S. Bank, N.A. 851 N.W.2d 598 Minn. 2014
Laura L. Walsh v. U.S. Bank, N.A. 851 N.W.2d 598 Minn. 2014
North Star International Trucks, Inc. v. Navistar, Inc. 837 N.W.2d 320 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
North Star International Trucks, Inc. v. Navistar, Inc. 837 N.W.2d 320 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
Appellant cites to support its argument that this court should grant relief in the interests of justice.
State v. Borg 834 N.W.2d 194 Minn. 2013
State v. Borg 834 N.W.2d 194 Minn. 2013
“We interpret procedural rules de novo.”
State v. Knutson 828 N.W.2d 485 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
State v. Knutson 828 N.W.2d 485 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
Gassler v. State 787 N.W.2d 575 Minn. 2010
Gassler v. State 787 N.W.2d 575 Minn. 2010
(discussing the application of the interests of justice in exceptional cases to allow out-of-time appeals to proceed); (“We must continuously bear in mind that to perform its high function in the best way justice must satisfy the appearance
State v. Green 747 N.W.2d 912 Minn. 2008
State v. Green 747 N.W.2d 912 Minn. 2008
(discussing the application of the interests of justice in exceptional cases); Valencia v. Markham Co-op.
State v. Coughlin 731 N.W.2d 862 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
State v. Coughlin 731 N.W.2d 862 Minn. Ct. App. 2007