Cited by
Opinions in Minnesota that cite Nguyen v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., 558 N.W.2d 487.
- American States Insurance Co. v. Ankrum 651 N.W.2d 513 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
- American States Insurance Co. v. Ankrum 651 N.W.2d 513 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
- In Re the Welfare of the Children of Coats 633 N.W.2d 505 Minn. 2001
- In Re the Welfare of the Children of Coats 633 N.W.2d 505 Minn. 2001
- Marriage of Lund v. Lund 615 N.W.2d 860 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
-
Marriage of Lund v. Lund
615 N.W.2d 860
Minn. Ct. App. 2000
Co., (noting that even where a client’s attorney’s neglect was “inexcusable,” courts are ordinarily loath to punish the innocent client for the attorney’s neglect) ().
- In Re the Welfare of S.H.R. 570 N.W.2d 704 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
-
In Re the Welfare of S.H.R.
570 N.W.2d 704
Minn. Ct. App. 1997
Co., (court rule, like statute, must be construed in the sense it was understood and intended when promulgated).
- State v. Williams 568 N.W.2d 885 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
-
State v. Williams
568 N.W.2d 885
Minn. Ct. App. 1997
Co., (applying canon of statutory construction in interpreting district court rule); cf. Minn.Stat.
- McClellan v. Goldberg 568 N.W.2d 860 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
-
McClellan v. Goldberg
568 N.W.2d 860
Minn. Ct. App. 1997
Co., (“Our case law reflects a strong policy favoring the granting of relief when judgment is entered through no fault of the client”); (“ordinarily courts are loath .to ‘punish’ the innocent client for the counsel’s neglect”); Duenow v. Lindeman, 2