Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Howard v. Frondell, 387 N.W.2d 205.

55 citing documents.

Les Grumdahl Window & Siding LLC, A Minnesota Limited Liability Company v. Holly Brown, ... Minn. Ct. App. 2024
Les Grumdahl Window & Siding LLC, A Minnesota Limited Liability Company v. Holly Brown, ... Minn. Ct. App. 2024
-08 (Minn. App. 1986), rev. denied (Minn. July 31, 1986); (citing Moorhead Econ.
Colby Lake Fourth Association, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
See Coller, d at 715; rev. denied (Minn. July 31, 1986) (“Neglect of the party itself which leads to entry of a default judgment is inexcusable, and such neglect is a proper ground for refusing to reopen a judgment.” ).
Tracy Nuthak, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
-208 (Minn. App. 1986), rev. denied (Minn. July 31, 1986).
Cheryl Orcutt, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
Only after a second order for judgment was entered, nearly five months after the initial filing [of the complaint], did [appellants] finally appear.2 2 Because “[a] party need only be served with written notice of the application for a default judgment if it has appeared in the action,” Howard v. Frondell , 6 A favorable outcome for [respondent] should not come as a surprise.
Larry Lake, et al., Respondents, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
which leads to entry of a default judgment is inexcusable, and such neglect is a proper ground for refusing to reopen a judgment.” d 205, 208 (Minn. App. 1986), review denied (Minn. July 31, 1986).
John Troupe v. Jeff Foster Construction, LLC Minn. Ct. App. 2017
John Troupe v. Jeff Foster Construction, LLC Minn. Ct. App. 2017
“It is for the trial court to determine whether the excuse offered by a defaulting party is reasonable.” Howard v. 7 Frondell, review denied (Minn. July 31, 1986).
Joseph Molesky v. John L. Trebesch, Sheila P. Sabas Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Joseph Molesky v. John L. Trebesch, Sheila P. Sabas Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Generally, “[i]t is for the [district] court to determine whether the excuse offered by a defaulting party is reasonable.” review denied (Minn. July 31, 1986).
Pearlene Willis v. Larkins Construction, LLC Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Pearlene Willis v. Larkins Construction, LLC Minn. Ct. App. 2015
B. Reasonable Excuse for Failure to Act Appellant claims it had a reasonable excuse for not responding to the lawsuit because it “reasonably believed” it had not been served with a summons and complaint.2 Generally, “[i]t is for the [district] court to determine whether the excuse offered by a defaulting party is reasonable.” review denied (Minn. July 31, 1986).
Black v. Rimmer 700 N.W.2d 521 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
Black v. Rimmer 700 N.W.2d 521 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
Reasonable excuse for the failure to act “Neglect of the party itself which leads to entry of a default judgment is inexcusable, and such neglect is a proper ground for refusing to reopen a judgment.” review denied (Minn. July 31, 1986).
Imperial Premium Finance, Inc. v. GK Cab Co. 603 N.W.2d 853 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
Imperial Premium Finance, Inc. v. GK Cab Co. 603 N.W.2d 853 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
“Neglect of the party itself which leads to entry of a default judgment is inexcusable, and such neglect is a proper ground for refusing to reopen a judgment.” review denied (Minn. July 31, 1986).
Kubiszewski v. St. John 498 N.W.2d 490 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
Kubiszewski v. St. John 498 N.W.2d 490 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
-08 (Minn.App.1986), pet.
In Re the Estate of McCue 449 N.W.2d 509 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
In Re the Estate of McCue 449 N.W.2d 509 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
Weber, d at 502 (-08 (Minn.Ct.App.1986), pet.
Bentonize, Inc. v. Green 431 N.W.2d 579 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Bentonize, Inc. v. Green 431 N.W.2d 579 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to reinstate an action dismissed pursuant to Fourth Judicial District Rule 4.03 where plaintiffs failed to show they had a meritorious claim, that defendants would suffer substantial prejudice if judgment was vacated, and where neglect that led to dismissal of case was not necessarily that of counsel but of plaintiff herself); pet.
Matter of Estate of Weber 418 N.W.2d 497 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Matter of Estate of Weber 418 N.W.2d 497 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
-08 (Minn.Ct.App.1986), pet.
Peterson v. Skutt Ceramic Products, Inc. 417 N.W.2d 648 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Peterson v. Skutt Ceramic Products, Inc. 417 N.W.2d 648 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
-08 (Minn.Ct.App.1986), pet.
Lysholm v. Karlos 414 N.W.2d 773 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Lysholm v. Karlos 414 N.W.2d 773 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
-208 (Minn.Ct.App.1986), pet.
Wiethoff v. Williams 413 N.W.2d 533 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Wiethoff v. Williams 413 N.W.2d 533 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Kosloski v. Jones, 295 Minn. 177, 180
Galatovich v. Watson 412 N.W.2d 758 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Galatovich v. Watson 412 N.W.2d 758 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Thomas v. Ross 412 N.W.2d 358 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Distinguished Thomas v. Ross 412 N.W.2d 358 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
McKay v. Boyer Ford Trucks, Inc. 411 N.W.2d 27 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
McKay v. Boyer Ford Trucks, Inc. 411 N.W.2d 27 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Schulz v. Milam 410 N.W.2d 845 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Schulz v. Milam 410 N.W.2d 845 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
-08 (Minn.Ct.App.1986), pet.
Soderling v. Hickok 409 N.W.2d 73 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Soderling v. Hickok 409 N.W.2d 73 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
-08 (Minn.Ct.App.1986), pet.
Charson v. Temple Israel 405 N.W.2d 895 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Arnold Johnsen Decorators, Inc. v. Holmbeck & Associates, Inc. 408 N.W.2d 919 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Armstrong v. Heckman 409 N.W.2d 27 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Armstrong v. Heckman 409 N.W.2d 27 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Arnold Johnsen Decorators, Inc. v. Holmbeck & Associates, Inc. 408 N.W.2d 919 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
-08 (Minn.Ct.App.1986), pet.
Lund v. Pan American MacHines Sales 405 N.W.2d 550 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Lund v. Pan American MacHines Sales 405 N.W.2d 550 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Sand v. School Service Employees Union, Local 284 402 N.W.2d 183 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Sand v. School Service Employees Union, Local 284 402 N.W.2d 183 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Valley View, Inc. v. Schutte 399 N.W.2d 182 Minn. Ct. App. 1987