Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Chapman v. Special School District No. 1, 454 N.W.2d 921.

41 citing documents.

Dametria White, et al., as co-trustees for the next-of-kin of Helayne Bass, deceased, Appellants, Minn. Ct. App. 2026
Nathan Adams Busch, et al., Appellants, Minn. Ct. App. 2024
No. 1, (rejecting plaintiff’s argument that later discovery of dismissal should trigger rule 60.02 one-year limitations period, in favor of district court’s entry of dismissal triggering limitations period).
Kieu Oanh T. Nguyen, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2024
A22-0300 Minn. 2023
No. 1, (“Clause (f) [of Rule 60.02] has been designated as a residual clause, designed only to afford relief in those circumstances exclusive of the specific areas addressed by clauses (a) through (e).”).
Lariat Companies, Inc., Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
Andre Agee, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
No. 1 , d 921, 924 (Minn. 1990).
In the Matter of the Civil Commitment of: Edward Everett Urbanek. Minn. Ct. App. 2019
No. 1, (noting that “[a]ttorney misconduct has been characterized as ‘excusable neglect’ under clause (a)”).
In the Matter of the Civil Commitment of: Larry Franklin Dean. Minn. Ct. App. 2019
No. 1, (characterizing attorney misconduct as ‘excusable neglect’ properly brought under rule 60.02(a)).
In the Matter of the Civil Commitment of: Justin Allen Newman. Minn. Ct. App. 2019
No. 1 , (characterizing attorney misconduct as ‘excusable neglect’ properly brought under rule 60.02(a))).
In the Matter of the Civil Commitment of: Daniel A. Wilson. Minn. Ct. App. 2019
No. 1 , (“Attorney miscondu ct has been characterized as ‘excusable neglect’ under clause (a) .
In re the Matter of: David Allen Engh, petitioner, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
In re Commitment of Johnson 931 N.W.2d 649 Minn. Ct. App. 2019
In re Commitment of Johnson 931 N.W.2d 649 Minn. Ct. App. 2019
923 (Minn. 1990) (noting that "[a]ttorney misconduct has been characterized as 'excusable neglect' under clause (a)").
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
No. 1 , , 923 (Minn. 1990).
Jay Nygard, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
No. 1, d 921, 923-24 (Minn. 1990).
In the Matter of the Civil Commitment of: Edward Eugene Dooley. Minn. Ct. App. 2019
No. 1 , cf. Cole v. Wutzke , (analyzing a motion for relief under rule 60.02(a) based on counsel’s mistake and ignorance of the law).
Dennis Lougee, et al., Appellants, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
No. 1 , d 921, 924 (Minn. 1990).
650 North Main Association, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
No. 1 , -24 (Minn. 1990).
Sherry Baker, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
No. 1 , (“attorney misconduct has been characterized as ‘excusable neglect’ under clause (a)”).
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
In the Matter of the Civil Commitment of: Peter Allan aka Peter Allan George Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Unifund CCR, LLC, as assignee of Pilot Receivables Management, LLC v. Jeffrey A. Carney Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Unifund CCR, LLC, as assignee of Pilot Receivables Management, LLC v. Jeffrey A. Carney Minn. Ct. App. 2016
No. 1, d 921, 924 (Minn. 1990).
Kern v. Janson 800 N.W.2d 126 Minn. 2011
Kern v. Janson 800 N.W.2d 126 Minn. 2011
Gassler v. State 787 N.W.2d 575 Minn. 2010
Gassler v. State 787 N.W.2d 575 Minn. 2010
No. 1, (holding that relief is available under Minn. R. Civ.
Ramsey County v. Suggs 653 N.W.2d 458 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
Ramsey County v. Suggs 653 N.W.2d 458 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
No. 1, (citation omitted); see also Sommers v. Thomas, 251 Minn. 461, 466-67 , -96 (1958).
Majestic Inc. v. Berry 593 N.W.2d 251 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
Majestic Inc. v. Berry 593 N.W.2d 251 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
Losoya v. Richardson 584 N.W.2d 425 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
Losoya v. Richardson 584 N.W.2d 425 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
No. 1, (stating relief under rule 60.02(f) “is available only under exceptional circumstances and then, only if the basis for the motion is other than that specified under (a) and (e)”).
DeGrande v. Demby 529 N.W.2d 340 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
Safeco Insurance Co. of America v. Dain Bosworth Inc. 531 N.W.2d 867 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
DeGrande v. Demby 529 N.W.2d 340 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
No. 1, (citing Hinz v. Northland Milk & Ice Cream Co., 237 Minn. 28, 30 , ).
Safeco Insurance Co. of America v. Dain Bosworth Inc. 531 N.W.2d 867 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
Gray v. Farmland Industries, Inc. 529 N.W.2d 514 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
Gray v. Farmland Industries, Inc. 529 N.W.2d 514 Minn. Ct. App. 1995