Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Soule v. FOREST LAKE CLINIC, 633 N.W.2d 852.

18 citing documents.

Jacqueline Blakey, Jerry Blakey v. Javonda Jones, Gina Alexander, ... Minn. 2023
In interpreting procedural rules, we also have a policy “to preserve the right to appeal, simplify practice, and lessen confusion.” S.M.E., d at 742
City of Waconia, Minn. 2021
Specifically, we seek to “preserv[e] the right to appeal” and avoid setting a “trap for the unwary.” 5–56 (Minn. 2001).
In re the Marriage of: Kristine Ann Spratt Hansen, n/k/a Kristine Ann Spratt, petitioner, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
See Huntsman v. Huntsman , 5 (Minn. 2001) (“Once the time to appeal has been tolled by a proper and timely post -decision motion, it commences upon service of notice of filing of the order disposing of the last post-decision motion outstanding, not the prior entry of an amended judgment.”).
In re the Marriage of: Ariel Theresa Bedner, n/k/a Ariel Theresa Wright, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
Guardian Energy, LLC v. Cnty. of Waseca 927 N.W.2d 1 Minn. 2019
2 (explaining that certain post-decision motions toll the running of the appeal period); see also Huntsman v. Huntsman , , 855 (Minn. 2001) (stating that "[n]otices of appeal filed before the disposition of post-decision motions are considered premature").
In re Welfare of the Child of R.K. 901 N.W.2d 156 Minn. 2017
In re the Marriage of: Pamela J. Atkinson n/k/a Pamela J. Kraker, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Michael Charles Sasse, f/k/a Michael Charles Sasse Penkert v. Kathryn Elizabeth Penkert, f/k/a Delight Bernice Penkert Minn. Ct. App. 2015
d 852, 854 (Minn. 2001).
North Star International Trucks, Inc. v. Navistar, Inc. 837 N.W.2d 320 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
P. 104.01 1998 advisory comm, cmt.; -55 (Minn.2001).
In Re the Welfare of S.M.E. 725 N.W.2d 740 Minn. 2007
COMMANDEUR LLC v. Howard Hartry, Inc. 724 N.W.2d 508 Minn. 2006
Marriage of Rubey v. Vannett 714 N.W.2d 417 Minn. 2006
2; (declining to construe the period to appeal as running from the entry of amended findings filed before the last tolling motion was resolved because “[s]uch a construction would undermine our policy of preserving the right to appeal, simplifying practice, and lessening confusion”).
Marriage of Cepek v. Cepek 684 N.W.2d 521 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
P. 6.01, which provides that if last day of prescribed period falls on Saturday, Sunday, or legal holiday, period is extended until end of next business day); , 854 n. 1 (Minn.2001) (noting that respondents service of notice of filing of order disposing of post-decision motion by facsimile transmission triggered 60-day appeal period).
Marriage of Mingen v. Mingen 679 N.W.2d 724 Minn. 2004
P. 104.01, Advisory Committee Comment—1998 Amendments
Marriage of Kloncz v. Kloncz 670 N.W.2d 618 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
Marriage of Mingen v. Mingen 662 N.W.2d 926 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
Lennartson v. Anoka-Hennepin Independent School District No. 11 662 N.W.2d 125 Minn. 2003
State v. Tschida 646 N.W.2d 886 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
As the supreme court has recognized, appellate rules should not be allowed to function as a “trap for the unwary.”