Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Lewin v. ASPEN MEDICAL GROUP, 723 N.W.2d 254.

19 citing documents.

A25-1621 Minn. Ct. App. 2026
matters that cannot be addressed effectively and timely by an available district judge”); (“[T]he district court has considerable discretion in scheduling matters and in furthering what it has identified as the interest of judicial administration and economy.” (quotation omitted)).
Pedcor Management Corp, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2026
District courts have “considerable discretion in scheduling matters and in furthering what [they have] identified as the interest of judicial administration and economy.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
Ismail told the district court that the witness was not present because he could not come and Ismail “cannot ask the witness every day to come to court and miss his job.” A “district court has considerable discretion in scheduling matters and in furthering what it has identified as the interest of judicial administration and economy.” State v. Hart (In re State), (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
n.5 (Minn. 2006) (noting that the supreme court requires “a showing of prejudice for a dismissal under the rule”).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
Maria Olson v. City of Cambridge, Jay T. Squires, Lisa Iverson, ... Minn. Ct. App. 2024
s had prevailed.” Appellants rely on rule 12.03, which provides that, “[a]fter the pleadings are closed but within such time as not to delay the trial, any party may move for judgment on the pleadings.” “[T]he district court has considerable discretion in scheduling matters and in furthering what it has identified as the interest of judicial administration and economy.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
State of Minnesota, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
State of Minnesota, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
in support of his position.
Klapmeier v. Cirrus Industries, Inc. 900 N.W.2d 386 Minn. 2017
In re Timothy Leslie, Dakota County Sheriff, State of Minnesota v. John David Emerson 889 N.W.2d 13 Minn. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Rafael Alfonso Banks 875 N.W.2d 338 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
n.5 (Minn. 2006) (“We have required a showing of prejudice for a dismissal under [rule 30.02].”).
State of Minnesota v. Jermaine Edward Harris Minn. Ct. App. 2015
(stating that upon dismissal of charges under Minn. Stat. § 631.21, the state may reinstate its case by recharging the accused).
State of Minnesota v. Douglas John Olson 867 N.W.2d 258 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
(restating the district court’s inherent authority to dismiss a case in the interests of justice).
State v. Fellegy 819 N.W.2d 700 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
-60 (Minn.2006) (recognizing district court’s authority to ensure that the court calendar runs on time and noting that “the district court has considerable discretion in scheduling matters and in furthering what it has identified as the interest of judicial administration and economy” (quotation omitted)).
State v. Sahr 812 N.W.2d 83 Minn. 2012
In making its motion, for the proposition that, whén a trial court dismisses a complaint in the interests of justice, the State’s remedy is to file a new complaint.
State v. Boehl 726 N.W.2d 831 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
Far from mandating the exercise of inherent judicial authority in other contexts, the supreme court has recognized the discretionary nature of this decision, see, -60 (Minn.2006) (reviewing for abuse of discretion district court’s decision to use its statutory and inherent judicial authority to dismiss complaint in interests of justice), and has admonished district courts to proceed cautiously when exercising that authority so as to “respect the equally unique authority of