Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Ferdinand Leo Gams, Jr., Respondent/Cross-Appellant v. Steven Ronald Houghton, Appellant/…, 884 N.W.2d 611.

160 citing documents.

In re the Estate of: Richard John Keim, Deceased Minn. Ct. App. 2019
In re the Marriage of: Russell Vander Wiel v. Sharna Ann Wahlgren Minn. Ct. App. 2019
The Jonathan Association, and S3 Holdings, LLC, its assignee v. Chase Wirth, John Doe, et al Minn. Ct. App. 2019
5 D E C I S I O N In general, “[t]he decision to v acate judgment under rule 60.02 rests within the district court’s discretion and will not be reversed absent an abuse of that discretion.” (quotation omitted), aff’d, d 611 (Minn. 2016).
In re the Matter of: David Allen Engh v. Jennifer Culver, Ramsey County, Intervenor Minn. Ct. App. 2019
“A district court abuses its discretion when it acts under a misapprehension of the law or when its factual findings are clearly erroneous.” (quotation and citation omitted).
Michael Norman Andersen v. Robert James Buehler, et al., Concord Township Minn. Ct. App. 2019
As such, a district court will not be reversed on appeal except f or a clear abuse of discretion.” Gams v. Houghton , (citations and quotations omitted).
Althaus v. Krueger 929 N.W.2d 907 Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Althaus v. Krueger 929 N.W.2d 907 Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Gams v. Houghton , , 616 (Minn. 2016).
In re the Marriage of: Denise Marie Kienholz v. Douglas Floyd Kienholz Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Buck Blacktop, Inc. v. Gary Contracting and Trucking Company, LLC 929 N.W.2d 12 Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Buck Blacktop, Inc. v. Gary Contracting and Trucking Company, LLC 929 N.W.2d 12 Minn. Ct. App. 2019
See, e.g. , Gams v. Houghton , , 615-21 (Minn. 2016) ; Cole v. Wutzke , , 637-39 (Minn. 2016) ; Nguyen v. State Farm Mut.
Mary Brown v. MSP Services LLC, d/b/a MSP Home Rental Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Olson v. One 1999 Lexus Mn License Plate No. 851ldv Vin: Jt6hf10u6x0079461 924 N.W.2d 594 Minn. 2019
Olson v. One 1999 Lexus Mn License Plate No. 851ldv Vin: Jt6hf10u6x0079461 924 N.W.2d 594 Minn. 2019
Gams v. Houghton , , 618 (Minn. 2016).
Nicholas J. Carney, et al v. Michael A. Lange, et al Minn. Ct. App. 2019
As such, a district court will not be reversed on a ppeal except f or a clear abuse of discretion.” Gams v. Houghton , (quotation and citations omitted).
Phyllis Louise Luskey v. Nikki Dee Eggum, et al Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Raymond Oswald, et al v. South Central Mutual Insurance Co. Minn. Ct. App. 2018
“The interpretation of the Minnesota Rules of Civil Procedure is a question of law that we review de novo.”
Thomas A. Ruether, et al v. Kathleen Mimbach Living Trust, et al., City of Rockville Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Gams v. Houghton , (quotation omitted).
In the Matter of the Civil Commitment of: Craig R. Jackman Minn. Ct. App. 2018
“[R]emand is the appropriate remedy when the district court has made insufficient findings to enable appellate review.” aff’d as modified
Paul King, et al v. County of St. Louis, Duluth Economic Development Authority Minn. Ct. App. 2018
“Whether procedural due process has been violated is a question of law that we review de novo.”
State of Minnesota v. T. K. S Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Gams v. Houghton , (M inn.
K.A.J. v. Emily Piper, Commissioner of Human Services Minn. Ct. App. 2018
“Whether procedural due process has been violated is a question of law that [appellate courts] review de novo.”
Larson Ventures, Inc. v. Jason P. Hoffman Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Larson Ventures, Inc. , 2017 WL 1833318, at *4 (citing and discussing Gams v. Houghton , , ).
Christensen Law Office, PLLC v. Olean 916 N.W.2d 876 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Christensen Law Office, PLLC v. Olean 916 N.W.2d 876 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Gams v. Houghton , , 620 (Minn. 2016).
Christensen Law Office, PLLC (A17-1158) Respondent (A17-1320) v. Daniel Olean (A17-1158) (A17-1320), Daniel L. Blees (A17-1320) Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Charlie Siegle v. Vern Karst Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Berg, Debele, DeSmidt & Rabuse, P.A., f/d/b/a Walling, Berg & Debele, P. A v. Robert I. Burns, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2018
650 North Main Association v. Frauenshuh, Inc., Territorial Springs Riverview, LLC, et al., Kraus-Anderson Construction Company, Doe Affiliates … Minn. Ct. App. 2018
P. 60.02(a); -20 (Minn. 2016); Cole, d at 637-38; Nelson v. Siebert
Rosetta Muscianese v. James Dankers Minn. Ct. App. 2018
d 60, 65 (Minn. App. 2015), aff’d as modified, (“[R]emand is the appropriate remedy when the district court has made insufficient findings to enable appellate review.”) .
Sela Invs. Ltd. LLP v. H.E. 909 N.W.2d 344 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Sela Invs. Ltd. LLP v. H.E. 909 N.W.2d 344 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Co. , , 139 (Minn. 2017) (interpreting another Minnesota statute); Gams v. Houghton , , 616 (Minn. 2016) (interpreting a Minnesota rule of civil procedure).
Sela Investments Ltd., LLP v. H.E. Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Co., (interpreting another Minnesota statute); (interpreting a Minnesota rule of civil procedure).
Sherry Baker v. Commissioner of Human Services, Blue Earth County Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Gams v. Houghton , -21 (Minn. 2016).
Mary Larsen, et al v. Paul Tessier Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Johnson v. City of Duluth 903 N.W.2d 1 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Johnson v. City of Duluth 903 N.W.2d 1 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
The city argues that the rules and the supreme court’s undermine the district court’s conclusion that judicial action is necessary to begin the rule-60.02 one-year motion-filing period.
In re Welfare of the Child of R.K. 901 N.W.2d 156 Minn. 2017
In re Welfare of the Child of R.K. 901 N.W.2d 156 Minn. 2017
See, (explaining that the plain language of Minn.R.
Livingston Financial, LLC, as successor in interest to US Bank v. Daniel O. Ward, II Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Gams v. Houghton , –20 (Minn. 2016) (citing Finden, 268 Minn. at 271, d at 750).
Glacial Plains Cooperative v. Chippewa Valley Ethanol Co. 897 N.W.2d 834 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Glacial Plains Cooperative v. Chippewa Valley Ethanol Co. 897 N.W.2d 834 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Cornell v. Ripka 897 N.W.2d 801 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Cornell v. Ripka 897 N.W.2d 801 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
o provide that any civil action “not filed with the court within one year of commencement against any party is deemed dismissed with prejudice against all parties.” The amended rule became effective for all cases pending or commenced as of July 1, 2013, provided that “no action shall be involuntarily dismissed pursuant to [the amendment] until one year after the effective date.”
Followed Jane Doe v. Empire Entertainment, LLC, d/b/a The Pourhouse, metroConnections, Inc. Minn. Ct. App. 2017
“If the language of a rule is plain and unambiguous, we follow the rule’s plain language.”
Larson Ventures, Inc. v. Jason P. Hoffman Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Gams, Cole, see Minn. R. Civ.
Cyrus E. Olson v. Todd Jackson Trucking, LLC, et al Minn. Ct. App. 2017
4 “Rule 60.02 is applicable to a Ru le 5.04(a) ‘deemed’ dismissal.” –18 (Minn. 2016).
City of Vadnais Heights v. Cynthia C. Lemke Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Gams v. Houghton , -20 (Minn. 2016).
In the Matter of Unity Health Care, Class F Home License No. 352187 and Unity Home Care, Inc., … Minn. Ct. App. 2017
In the Matter of Unity Health Care, Class F Home License No. 352187 and Unity Home Care, Inc., … Minn. Ct. App. 2017
“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).
Susan Dianna Orr v. Rebecca Kay Britten Minn. Ct. App. 2017

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by