Cited by

A district court abuses its discretion if its ruling relies on “a misapprehension of the law” or if “its factual findings are clearly erroneous.” (quotations omitted).3 We view the record in the light most favorable to the district court ’s decision.

“The foundational principle of the right to due process is an opportunity to be heard upon such notice and proceedings as are adequate to safeguard the right for which the constitutional protection is invoked.” (quotation omitted).

As such, a district court will not be reversed on appeal except for a clear abuse of discretion.” d 611, 620 (Minn. 2016) (citations and quotations omitted).

“The foundational principle of the right to due process is an opportunity to be heard upon such notice and proceedings as are adequate to safeguard the right for which the constitutional protection is invoked.” (quotation omitted).

Generally, “[t]he decision whether to grant Rule 60.02 relief is based on all the surrounding facts of each specific case, and is committed to the sound discretion of the district court,” and “will not be reversed on appeal except for a clear abuse of discretion.” (citations and quotations omitted).

We will not determine that a district court abused 6 its discretion unless “its decision was based on an erroneous view of the law or was against logic and the facts in the record.” (quotation omitted); (quotations omitted).

A district court abuses its discretion if its ruling relies on “a misapprehension of the law” or if “its factual findings are clearly erroneous.” (quotations omitted).

d 611, 620 (Minn. 2016).

d 611, 620 (Minn. 2016).

ice against all parties unless the parties within that year sign a stipulation to extend the filing period.” The Minnesota Supreme Court has held that a defendant “does not need to take any action for Rule 5.04(a) to operate” and “a case is automatically ‘deemed’ dismissed with prejudice upon failure to file, or obtain a stipulation, within the 1-year deadline in the rule.” (footnote omitted) (quoting Minn. R. Civ.

“The decision whether to grant rule 60.02 relief is based on all the surrounding facts of each specific case, and is committed to the sound discretion of the district court.”

-18 (Minn. 2016); -39 (Minn. 2016).

d 611, 618 (Minn. 2016).

2 The Gregory brothers also argue that they were entitled to an evidentiary hearing on their removal petition.

The district court abuses its discretion if it “acts under a misapprehension of the law or when its factual findings are clearly erroneous.” (quotations omitted).

eir counsel’s neglect if (1) the party has “a reasonable defense on the merits,” (2) the party has “a reasonable excuse for [its] failure or neglect to answer,” (3) the party “acted with due diligence after notice of the entry of judgment, and” (4) the party shows “no substantial prejudice will result to the other party.” Finden, d at 750 (Finden factors); –20 (Minn. 2016).

“The interpretation of the Minnesota Rule s of Civil Procedure is a question of law that [an appellate court] reviews de novo.” Gams v. Houghton

Likewise, “[t] he interpretation of the Minnesota Rules of Civil Procedure is a questi on of law that [appellate courts] review de novo.”

See Gams v. Houghton , -18 (Minn. 2016); -39 (Minn. 2016).

“The decision whether to grant rule 60.02 relief is based on all the surrounding facts of each specific case, and is committed to the sound discretion of the district court.” d 611, 620 (Minn. 2016).

“The foundational principle of the right to due process is an opportunity to be heard upon such notice and proceedings as are adequate to safeguard the right for which the constitutional protection is invoked.” (quotation omitted).

(stating that a party must satisfy all four factors articulated in rule 60.02 in order to be granted relief).

“The decision whether to grant Rule 60.02 relief is based on all the surrounding facts of each specific case, and is committed to the sound discretion of the district court.”

A district court has discretion to grant rule 60.02 relief “based on all the surrounding facts of each specific case.”

“The interpretation of the Minnesota Rules of Civil Procedure is a question of law that we review de nov o.” Gams v. Houghton

(holding that interpreting rules “is a question of law that [appellate courts] review de novo” ); Cocchiarella v. Driggs , (holding that interpreting statutes “is a question of law that [appellate courts] review de novo”).

Cole, d at 637; see also Gams v. Houghton , (rejecting the notion that a party seeking relief under Minn. R. Civ.

“The interpretation of the Minnesota Rules of Civil Procedure is a question of law that we review de novo.”

“The foundational principle of the right to due process is an opportunity to be heard upon such notice and proceedings as are adequate to safeguard the right for which the constitutional protection is invoked.” (quotation omitted).