Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Lewis v. Contracting Northwest, Inc., 413 N.W.2d 154.

21 citing documents.

Walter Smith v. Eric A. Johnson, Steven Scott Properties Management, ... Minn. Ct. App. 2025
Walter Smith v. Eric A. Johnson, Steven Scott Properties Management, ... Minn. Ct. App. 2025
Lewis v. Contracting Nw., Inc.
Barbara Schmidt, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2024
(citing Lewis v. Contracting Nw., Inc., ); see also 1 David F. Herr & Roger S. Hayd ock, Minnesota Practice, Civil Rules Annotated § 12:8 (6th ed. 2021) (“The proper action to be taken by the court, if it finds insufficient service of process, is to dismiss the action without prejudice.”).
Twin City Petroleum and Properties, LLC, et al., Appellants, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
Lewis v. Contracting Nw., Inc.
Lisa Thielen, et al., Appellants, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
Lewis v. Contracting Nw., Inc., see also 1 David F. Herr & Roger S. Haydock, Minnesota Practice, Civil Rules Annotated § 12:8 (6th ed. 2021) (“The proper action to be taken by the court, if it finds insu fficient service of process, is to dismiss the action without prejudice.”).
Howard Norsetter, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
See Lewis v. Contracting Nw., Inc., (observing that both a summons and a subpoena may be served by any nonparty age 18 or older).
Timothy Gieseke, et al., Appellants, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
Unless authorized by another rule of civil procedure, no exception to the nonpa rty rule exist s. Lewis v. Contracting Nw., Inc.
State v. BRIARD 784 N.W.2d 421 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
State v. BRIARD 784 N.W.2d 421 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
In Lewis v. Contracting Northwest, Inc., we observed that “[t]he rationale behind this restriction is to eliminate bias, acrimony and possible oppression which is inherent in litigation.” see also 62B Am.Jur.2d Process § 125 (2005) (“The intent of a statute or common law rule prohibiting personal service of process by parties is to discourage fraudulent service by persons with an adversarial interest in a legal action....
Mercer v. Andersen 715 N.W.2d 114 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
Mercer v. Andersen 715 N.W.2d 114 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
We reject Mercer’s claim that this result conflicts with Lewis v. Contracting Northwest, Inc.
Roehrdanz v. Brill 668 N.W.2d 217 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
Roehrdanz v. Brill 668 N.W.2d 217 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
Lewis v. Contracting Northwest, Inc.
Year 2001 Budget Appeal of Landgren v. Pipestone County Board of Commissioners 633 N.W.2d 875 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
Year 2001 Budget Appeal of Landgren v. Pipestone County Board of Commissioners 633 N.W.2d 875 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
Such possibilities run counter to the purpose of rule 4.02, which is “to eliminate bias, acrimony and possible oppression which is inherent in litigation.” Lewis v. Contracting NW, Inc., (affirming dismissal when pro se party personally served opposing party); see also Stransky v. Indep.
Uthe v. Baker 629 N.W.2d 121 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
Uthe v. Baker 629 N.W.2d 121 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
Lewis v. Contracting Northwest, Inc.
Leek v. American Express Property Casualty 591 N.W.2d 507 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
Leek v. American Express Property Casualty 591 N.W.2d 507 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
Lewis v. Contracting Northwest, Inc.
Blaine v. Anoka-Hennepin Independent School District No. 11 498 N.W.2d 309 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
Blaine v. Anoka-Hennepin Independent School District No. 11 498 N.W.2d 309 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
for rev. denied (Minn. July 12, 1989); Lewis v. Contracting Northwest, Inc., (“The district court properly dismissed appellant’s case for lack of jurisdiction due to insufficient service of process”); 1 David F. Herr et al., Minnesota Practice § 12.8, at 259 (1985) (motion to dismiss under rule 12.02(4) for insufficiency of service of process alleges that plaintiff has not