Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Peterson v. 2004 Ford Crown Victoria Vin: 2FAHP74WX4X158445, 792 N.W.2d 454.

21 citing documents.

A24-0831 Minn. Ct. App. 2024
Peterson v. 2004 Ford Crown Victoria , (quotation omitted).
In re the Matter of: Bamidele Adetifa, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
Peterson v. 2004 Ford Crown Victoria
In re the Marriage of: Allison Catherine Buckner, petitioner, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
DECISION I. Inherent Authority “[D]istrict courts possess inhe rent authority to impose sanctions as necessary to protect their ‘vital function—the disposition of individual cases to deliver remedies for wrongs and justice freely and without purchase; completely and without denial; promptly and without delay, conformable to the laws.’” Peterson v. 2004 Ford Crown Victoria, ().
In re the Marriage of: Bryan Larry Lovas, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
5 v. 2004 Ford Crown Victoria VIN: 2FAHP74WX4X158445, (“[D]istrict courts possess inherent authority to impose sanctions as necessary to protect their vital function .
Justin K. Ayers, et al., Respondents, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
Peterson v. 2004 Ford Crown Victoria, 1 (Minn. App. 2010 ).
In re the Marriage of: Beth Ann Bersaw, petitioner, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
“District courts possess inherent authority to impose sanctions as necessary to protect their vital function —the disposition of individual cases to deliver remedies for wrongs and justice.” Peterson v. 2004 Ford Crown Victoria, (Minn. 1 In response to wife’s reply brief, husband argues that Minn. Stat. § 518.14, subd.
John S. Drewitz, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Peterson v. 2004 Ford Crown Victoria
Kokosh v. $4657.00 U.S. Currency 898 N.W.2d 284 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Kokosh v. $4657.00 U.S. Currency 898 N.W.2d 284 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
See Peterson v. 2004 Ford Crown Victoria, (“[w]hen a claimant fails to serve and file a demand for judicial determination of forfeiture as required by statute, a forfeiture proceeding is not initiated, and as a result there is no proceeding over which the district court has jurisdiction”) II.
Dustin Ray George Dittmar v. George Andrew Karels Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Dustin Ray George Dittmar v. George Andrew Karels Minn. Ct. App. 2016
DECISION I. “Attorney fees are available by statute and by court rule.” Peterson v. 2004 Ford Crown Victoria
Thomas M. Fafinski v. Jaren Johnson Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Thomas M. Fafinski v. Jaren Johnson Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Peterson v. 2004 Ford Crown Victoria
Thomas James Mitchell v. $6,429 of US Currency Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Thomas James Mitchell v. $6,429 of US Currency Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Peterson v. 2004 Ford Crown Victoria
Gail R. Trotta v. Duluth Realty Company, Randy Underthun Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Gail R. Trotta v. Duluth Realty Company, Randy Underthun Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Peterson v. 2004 Ford Crown 6 Victoria
La'Mont Knazze, III, Okhui Cho-Knazze v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A., CTX Mortgage Company LLC, d/b/a CTX Mortgage … Minn. Ct. App. 2015
La'Mont Knazze, III, Okhui Cho-Knazze v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A., CTX Mortgage Company LLC, d/b/a CTX Mortgage … Minn. Ct. App. 2015
at 119 (“The task of determining what, if any, sanction is to be imposed is implicated by the broad authority provided the trial court.”); Peterson v. 2004 Ford Crown Victoria, (noting that a district court’s inherent authority to impose sanctions includes awarding attorney fees).
Guava LLC, Michael Dugas v. Spencer Merkel, Qwest Communications Corporation, Respondents,John Doe 173.23.48.174, John Doe 24.111.103.45, John Doe … Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Guava LLC, Michael Dugas v. Spencer Merkel, Qwest Communications Corporation, Respondents,John Doe 173.23.48.174, John Doe 24.111.103.45, John Doe … Minn. Ct. App. 2014
P. 45.03(a), which mandates that “[a] party or attorney responsible for the issuance and service of a subpoena shall take reasonable steps to avoid imposing undue burden or expense on a person subject to that subpoena.” The district court cited Minnesota caselaw addressing the inherent authority of the courts to issue sanctions, particularly Peterson v. 2004 Ford Crown Victoria