Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite DLH, Inc. v. Russ, 566 N.W.2d 60.

761 citing documents.

Wayne v. MasterShield, Inc. 597 N.W.2d 917 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
Paulos v. Johnson 597 N.W.2d 316 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
Paulos v. Johnson 597 N.W.2d 316 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
Patterson v. Wu Family Corp. 594 N.W.2d 540 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
Patterson v. Wu Family Corp. 594 N.W.2d 540 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
See DLH, (explaining difference between summary judgment and directed verdict).
Bode v. Minnesota Department of Natural Resources 594 N.W.2d 257 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
Bode v. Minnesota Department of Natural Resources 594 N.W.2d 257 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
Co., 132 F.3d 1225 (8th Cir.1997) (party may not use a 60(b)(4) motion as a substitute for a timely appeal when party fails to challenge lower court’s exercise of jurisdiction over aspects of claim); 11 Wright, supra § 2862, at 331; see also DLH, (federal courts’ interpretation of federal rules of procedure may provide guidance on interpretation of parallel state rules of civil procedure).
Donahue v. Schwegman, Lundberg, Woessner & Kluth, P.A. 586 N.W.2d 811 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
Donahue v. Schwegman, Lundberg, Woessner & Kluth, P.A. 586 N.W.2d 811 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
Obert v. Dahl 574 N.W.2d 747 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
Obert v. Dahl 574 N.W.2d 747 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
See DLH, (summary judgment inappropriate when fact questions exist that can only be properly resolved by trier of fact).