Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Palladium Holdings, LLC v. Zuni Mortgage Loan Trust 2006-OA1, 775 N.W.2d 168.

79 citing documents.

In the Marriage of: Minn. Ct. App. 2026
Loan Trust, -78 (Minn. App. 2009) (stating that “[a]ppellate courts cannot assume a district court erred by failing to address a motion, and silence on a motion is therefore treated as an implicit denial of the motion”), rev. denied (Minn. Jan.
Meaghan Witthaus, et al., Respondents, Minn. Ct. App. 2026
2006- OA1, (quotation omitted), rev. denied (Minn. Jan.
In re the Marriage of: Minn. Ct. App. 2026
2006-OA1, -78 (Minn. App. 2009) (“Appellate courts cannot assume a district court erred by failing to address a motion, and silence on a motion is therefore treated as an implicit denial of the motion.”), rev. denied (Minn. Jan.
Solution Blue Inc., a Minnesota Corporation, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2026
2006-OA1, (quotation omitted), rev. denied (Minn. Jan.
State of Minnesota v. Kyle Adam Bruce, Midwest Bonding, LLC Minn. Ct. App. 2026
State of Minnesota v. Kyle Adam Bruce, Midwest Bonding, LLC Minn. Ct. App. 2026
2006-OA1, (“An appealing party bears the burden of demonstrating both error and prejudice.”), rev. denied (Minn. Jan.
In re the Trust of Elizabeth A. Ronning & Wallace K. Ronning. Minn. Ct. App. 2026
2006-OA1, - 78 (Minn. App. 2009) (“Appellate courts cannot assume a district court erred by failing to address a motion, and silence on a motion is therefore treated as an implicit denial of the motion.”), rev. denied (Minn. Jan.
Sherrie Ann Williams v. Midwest Bonding Minn. Ct. App. 2025
Sherrie Ann Williams v. Midwest Bonding Minn. Ct. App. 2025
Loan Trust 2006-OA1, –8 (Minn. App. 2009), rev. denied (Minn. Jan.
In the Matter of: Anthony Michael Webster, II On Behalf of Minor Child(ren) v. Sefaint Atkins, ... Minn. Ct. App. 2025
In the Matter of: Anthony Michael Webster, II On Behalf of Minor Child(ren) v. Sefaint Atkins, ... Minn. Ct. App. 2025
Loan Trust 2006-OA1, -78 (Minn. App. 2009), rev. denied (Minn. Jan.
In the Marriage of: Minn. Ct. App. 2025
2006-OA1, -78 (Minn. App. 2009), rev. denied (Minn. Jan.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
2006-OA1, d 168, 178 (Minn. App. 2009) (“Appellate courts cannot assume a district court erred by failing to address a motion, and silence on a motion is therefore treated as an implicit denial of the motion.”), rev. denied (Minn. Jan.
Don Magnuson, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
2006 -OA1, (citation and quotations omitted), rev. denied (Minn. Jan.
Realty Pros, LLC, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
2006-OA1, - 77 (Minn. App. 2009) (applying the four “Finden factors” to a rule 60.02 motion), rev. denied (Minn. Jan.
In Re the Marriage of: Minn. Ct. App. 2025
2006-OA1, -78 (Minn. App. 2009), rev. denied (Minn. Jan.
In re the Marriage of: Minn. Ct. App. 2025
2006-OA1, -78 (Minn. App. 2009), rev. denied (Minn. Jan.
Pebble Creek LLC, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2024
2006-OA1, rev. denied (Minn. Jan.
Justin Dean Schultz v. Analisa French Perkins Minn. Ct. App. 2024
Justin Dean Schultz v. Analisa French Perkins Minn. Ct. App. 2024
2006-OA1, -78 (Minn. App. 2009), rev. denied (Minn. Jan.
A21-0583 State of Minnesota v. Larry Joe Foster, A21-0070, Court of Appeals Nonprecedential, ... Minn. Ct. App. 2024
A21-0583 State of Minnesota v. Larry Joe Foster, A21-0070, Court of Appeals Nonprecedential, ... Minn. Ct. App. 2024
2006-OA1, d 168, 177-78 (Minn. App. 2009) (“Appellate courts cannot assume a district court erred by failing to address a motion, and silence on a motion is therefore treated as an implicit denial of the motion.”), rev. denied (Minn. Jan.
State of Minnesota v. Charlene Marie Waldron Minn. Ct. App. 2023
State of Minnesota v. Charlene Marie Waldron Minn. Ct. App. 2023
2006-OA1, -78 (Minn. App. 2009) (“Appellate courts cannot assume a district court erred by failing to address a motion, and silence on a motion is therefore treated as an implicit denial of the motion.”), rev. denied (Minn. Jan.
Thomas Coleman v. City of Stillwater, RMR of Stillwater, LLC Minn. Ct. App. 2023
Thomas Coleman v. City of Stillwater, RMR of Stillwater, LLC Minn. Ct. App. 2023
2006-OA1, -78 (Minn. App. 2009), rev. denied (Minn. Jan.
Mark J. Kallenbach, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
2006-OA1, rev. denied (Minn. Jan.
2913 29th Avenue South LLC, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
2006 -0A1, rev. denied (Minn. Jan 27, 2010).
A22-1469 Minn. Ct. App. 2023
Loan Trust 2006-OA1, -78 (Minn. App. 2009) (assuming a district court rejected an argument rather than assuming it erred by not addressing the argument), rev. denied (Minn. Jan.
A21-1725 Minn. Ct. App. 2023
2006-OA1, - 78 (Minn. App. 2009) , rev. denied (Minn. Jan.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
Loan Tr., rev. denied (Minn. Jan.
In the Matter of the Trust of Robert W Moreland a/k/a Robert William Moreland. Minn. Ct. App. 2022
2006-OA1, -78 (Minn. App. 2009) (), rev. denied (Minn. Jan.
In re the Marriage of: Emily Kay Stilwagon, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
Loan Trust 2006-OA1, -78 (Minn. App. 2 009) (“[S]ilence on a motion is .
Mohamed Abdikadir Ahmed, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
Loan Trust 2006 -OA1, -78 (Minn. App. 2009) (noting that failure to address a motion is an implicit denial of that motion), review denied (Minn. Jan.
Minnesota Bank & Trust, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
Loan Tr., -78 (Minn. App. 2009 ) (“Appellate courts cannot assume a district court erred by failing to address a motion, and silence on a motion is therefore treated as an implicit denial of the motion.”), review denied (Minn. Jan.
In re the Marriage of: Minn. Ct. App. 2021
Loan Tr., - 78 (Minn. App. 2009) (“Appellate courts cannot assume a district court erred by failing to address a motion, and silence on a motion is ther efore treated as an im plicit denial of the motion.”), review denied (Minn. Jan.
In the Matter of the Civil Commitment of: Jesse Nikolas Rowland. Minn. Ct. App. 2021
See Palladium Holdings, LLC v. Zuni Loan Trust 2006 -OA1, (“Gen erally, what constitutes a reasonable time for seeking rule 60.02 relief varies based on the facts of each case.”) , review denied (Minn. Jan.
Earl Lionell Ward, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
2006-OA1, -78 (Minn. App. 2009) (citing Loth v. Loth , (stating that an appellate court cannot assume a district court erred)), review denied (Minn. Jan.
In re the Marriage of: Minn. Ct. App. 2020
Loan Trust 2006-OA1, -78 (Minn. App. 2009) (citing Loth to support the proposition that “silence on a motion is .
Kyle Wendell Else, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
Loan Trust 2006—OA1 , (Minn. 5 At oral argument, Else claimed that he rais ed a direct challenge to the district court’s decision to exclude expert testimony.
In the Matter of the Application of: Hollis John Larson for a Change of Name. Minn. Ct. App. 2019
2006–OA1, -78 (Minn. App. 2009), review denied (Minn. Jan.
Andrew Geist, individually and as parent and natural guardian of minor, T.G., Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
2006-OA1, review denied (Minn. Jan.
In re the Marriage of: John Richard Strosahl, petitioner, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Loan Tr., –78 (Minn. App. 2009), review denied (Minn. Jan.
Joel Storland, et al., Respondents, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
2006-OA1 , –78 (Minn. App. 2009), review denied (Minn. Jan.
Vickie Apel, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
2006-OA1, - 78 (Minn. App. 2009) (“Appellate courts cannot assume a district court erred by failing to address a motion, and silence on a motion is therefore treated as an implicit denial of the motion.”), review denied (Minn. Jan.
In re the Marriage of: Carolynn Bitker, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Loan Trust 2006 -OA1, d 168, 177-78 (Minn. App. 2009) (“Appellate courts cannot assume a district court erred by failing to address a motion, and silence on a motion is therefore treated as an implicit denial of the motion.”), review denied (Minn. Jan.
In the Matter of the Welfare of the Children of: S.E.M., J.M.K., S.M.M. and D.J.S., Parents. Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Loan Tr ust, -78 (Minn. App. 2009), review denied (Minn. Jan.
In re the Marriage of: Heather Newman, n/k/a Heather Osagiede, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Loan Trust 2006 —OA1, - 78 (Minn. App. 2009) (“Appellate courts cannot assume a district court erred by failing to address a motion, and silence on a motion is therefore treated as an implicit denial of the motion.”), review denied (Minn. Jan.
C. W., et al., Appellants, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
2006-OA1, -78 (Minn. App. 2009), review denied (Minn. Jan.
Paula Mirare Overby, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Loan Trust 2006 - OA1, -78 (Minn. App. 2009).