Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Cummings v. Kelly Services & Indemnity Co. of North America, 835 N.W.2d 472.

28 citing documents.

Minnesota Department of Natural Resources v. Murray County Board of Adjustment, Edgewater Bay, LLC, et al Minn. Ct. App. 2026
9, does not specify the procedure by which a notice of appeal is to be served,” the rules of civil procedure are to be followed), rev’d on other grounds
City of Ellendale v. Daniel Petsinger, Carrie Petsinger Minn. Ct. App. 2026
P. 61 (providing that the courts are to “disregard any error or defect in the proceeding which does not affect the substantial rights of the parties”); In re Application of Skyline Materials, Ltd. for Zoning Variance, -76 (Minn. 2013) (explaining the difference between service of process of a summons and complaint under Minn. R. Civ.
Masami Kiya v. Randy Jackson, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2025
See In re Skyline Materials, Ltd., (observing that a “civil action” is “any judicial proceeding, which, if conducted to a determination, will result in a judgment or decree” and concluding that a proceeding before a county board was “not a judicial proceeding and so [was] not a ‘civil action’ within the meaning of the Rules of Civ
State of Minnesota, by Spring Valley Friends, LLC, et al v. Riley Purgatory Bluff Creek Watershed District, Pulte … Minn. Ct. App. 2023
31, 1994); see also In re Skyline Materials, Ltd., (holding that the district court lacked jurisdiction over an appeal to the district court regarding a county ’s variance decision that was not initiated within the 30-day statutory period).
Hiscox Insurance Company Minn. 2023
For example, in In re Skyline Materials, Ltd., we looked to Black’s Law Dictionary to define “action,” stating: “A ‘civil action’ under the Rules of Civil Procedure is a judicial proceeding .” (emphasis added) (citing Action , Black’s Law Dictionary 32 (9th ed. 2009).
In re the Matter of Joseph Rued v. the Commissioner of Human Services Minn. Ct. App. 2023
1Throughout this opinion, we refer to the district-court proceeding as an “action” rather than an “appeal” because the supreme court did so in In re Skyline Materials, Ltd., -78 (Minn. 2013), because doing so tends to avoid confusion with an appeal to an appellate court, and because the term “action” is used in the rules of civil procedure, which apply to a proceeding authorized by Minnesota Statutes section 256.045, subdivision 7, see Minn. R. Civ.
Phillip T. Kruger (A22-0348), Harvey Kruger, et al. (A22-0349) v. Kevin Nordquist (A22-0349), Heron Lake Watershed District, Acting … Minn. Ct. App. 2022
In re Skyline Materials, Ltd ., d 472, 475 (Minn. 2013).
Burl Peckman Individually and as Trustee of Burl W. Peckman Living Trust v. Roseau River Watershed District Minn. Ct. App. 2022
31, 1994); see also In re Skyline Materials, Ltd., (holding that the district court lacked jurisdiction over an appeal to the district court regarding a county’s variance decision that was not initiated within the 30-day statutory period).
In the Matter of V & J Farm, LLC and the Commissioner of North Fork Crow River Watershed … Minn. Ct. App. 2022
P. 4.03 and In re Skyline Materials, Ltd.
The Gables at the Reserve Homeowners Association v. Midwest Family Mutual Insurance Company Minn. Ct. App. 2021
In re Skyline Materials, Ltd. , -78 (Minn. 2013); see also Mercer v. Andersen
Thomas Hecker v. Crow Wing County Board, Sunset Shores WF, LLC Minn. Ct. App. 2021
See In re Skyline Materials, Ltd. , (concluding district court lacked jurisdiction over appeal under Minn. St at.
R.P. AIR, INC., et al v. Great Gulf Corporation, Jane Doe, et al Minn. Ct. App. 2021
In re Skyline Materials, Ltd., (discussing in-state service under Minn. R. Civ.
In re the Marriage of: Dia Eldin Jubara v. Nihad Salah Awad Hamed Minn. Ct. App. 2021
” In re Skyline Materials, Ltd.
A. Darlene Gibson v. Special School District #1 Minn. Ct. App. 2020
In re Skyline Materials, Ltd.
Carol Eppolite v. Dustin James Swenson, et al Minn. Ct. App. 2020
12 Service of process in a civil action is necessary to “invoke[] the jurisdiction of the court.” In re Skyline Materials, Ltd.
John Schulz, et al., Minn. 2019
In re Skyline Materials, Ltd.
Cheryl L. Stinski v. Jim Ruedebusch, et al., Carlton County Minn. Ct. App. 2019
In re Skyline Materials, Ltd.
Janet M. Bauch, et al v. City of Pine Island Minn. Ct. App. 2019
In re Skyline Materials, Ltd.
Schulz v. Town of Duluth 923 N.W.2d 703 Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Our Curtis opinion, however, was effectively overruled by the supreme court in In re Skyline Materials, Ltd. , which held that, regardless of the label used in the statute, a judicial proceeding in the district court under section 394.27, subdivision 9, to review a county's decision on a zoning-variance application is a civil action for which the person seeking review is "required to effect service pursuant to Ru
Cox v. Mid-Minnesota Mut. Ins. Co. 909 N.W.2d 540 Minn. 2018
In re Skyline Materials, Ltd. , , 478 (Minn. 2013) (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted).
Eureka Township v. Teresa Lynn Petter, et al Minn. Ct. App. 2017
In re Skyline Materials, Ltd.
Kokosh v. $4657.00 U.S. Currency 898 N.W.2d 284 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
See In re Skyline Materials, Ltd., -76 (Minn. 2013) (explaining difference between rule 4 and rule 5).
Lowell Trom, et al v. County of Dodge, et al., Masching Swine Farms, LLC Minn. Ct. App. 2017
In re Skyline Materials, Ltd. , .
Steven J. Jaeger v. Palladium Holdings, LLC, Franklin Financial, LLC 884 N.W.2d 601 Minn. 2016
at 404; see In re Skyline Materials, Ltd., 14 (“Statutory provisions for service of notice must be strictly followed in order for a court to acquire jurisdiction.”).
Beverly Waldorf Tokarz v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016
See In re Skyline Materials, Ltd., (stating that “one is not made a ‘party’ to an action” until effective service of process occurs (quotation omitted)).
McCullough and Sons, Inc. v. City of Vadnais Heights, A14-1992 883 N.W.2d 580 Minn. 2016
The City relies on two other cases, d 766 (Minn. 1977) and In re Skyline Materials, Ltd., to support its view that McCullough’s failure to file or present a written objection deprived the district court of subject-matter jurisdiction over McCullough’s appeal.
Poppler v. Wright Hennepin Cooperative Electric Ass'n 845 N.W.2d 168 Minn. 2014
In re Skyline Materials, Ltd.
Hooper v. State 838 N.W.2d 775 Minn. 2013
See In re Skyline Materials, Ltd., (remanding to the district court with instructions to dismiss the appeal because the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the case).