Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Rice Park Properties v. Robins, Kaplan, Miller & Ciresi, 532 N.W.2d 556.

26 citing documents.

Hope Larsen v. Erin Lee Mullen and d/b/a Running LL's Ranch Minn. Ct. App. 2026
Hope Larsen v. Erin Lee Mullen and d/b/a Running LL's Ranch Minn. Ct. App. 2026
v. Robins, Kaplan, Miller & Ciresi
State of Minnesota v. Nicholas Scott Thompson Minn. Ct. App. 2026
State of Minnesota v. Nicholas Scott Thompson Minn. Ct. App. 2026
v. Robins, Kaplan, Miller & Ciresi, (“[T]he district court has considerable discretion in scheduling matters and in furthering what it has identified as the interests of judicial administration and economy.”); Camacho, d at 172 (stating “that the standards for competency to stand trial and for competency to waive counsel ar
In the Matter of the Ronald E. Roehrs Trust Dated August 9, 1999. Minn. Ct. App. 2026
v. Robins, Kaplan, Miller & Ciresi
Jacob Becker, et al., Appellants, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
v. Robins, Kaplan, Miller & Ciresi
Adam C. Steele, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
v. Robins, Kaplan, Miller & Ciresi , (observing that district court “has considerable discretion in .
Timberland Partners, Inc., Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
v. Robins, Kaplan, Miller & Ciresi
Madison Equities, Inc. v. Robert L. Crockarell 889 N.W.2d 568 Minn. 2017
Madison Equities, Inc. v. Robert L. Crockarell 889 N.W.2d 568 Minn. 2017
v. Robins, Kaplan, Miller & Ciresi, (holding that the district court had the discretion to stay proceedings pending the resolution of a separate action involving the same parties and legal issue, “to avoid an unnecessary duplication of time, effort and expenditure”).
In re the Marriage of: Anita Jurevica v. Margots Kapacs Minn. Ct. App. 2016
In re the Marriage of: Anita Jurevica v. Margots Kapacs Minn. Ct. App. 2016
v. Robins, Kaplan, Miller & Ciresi
Mohammad Sonbol v. Green and White Taxi Cab Company, Inc. Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Mohammad Sonbol v. Green and White Taxi Cab Company, Inc. Minn. Ct. App. 2016
v. Robins, Kaplan, Miller & Ciresi
In re the Matter of Boyd Jacob Phelps v. Lynnea Diana Sterling Minn. Ct. App. 2015
In re the Matter of Boyd Jacob Phelps v. Lynnea Diana Sterling Minn. Ct. App. 2015
v. Robins, Kaplan, Miller & Ciresi
Deutsche Bank National Trust Co. v. Hanson 841 N.W.2d 161 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Deutsche Bank National Trust Co. v. Hanson 841 N.W.2d 161 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Rice Park Props, v. Robins, Kaplan, Miller & Ciresi
Bjorklund v. Bjorklund Trucking, Inc. 753 N.W.2d 312 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
Bjorklund v. Bjorklund Trucking, Inc. 753 N.W.2d 312 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
Nonetheless, BTI contends that denial of its motions to stay was an abuse of discretion under the supreme court’s ruling in Rice Park Props, v. Robins, Kaplan, Miller & Ciresi
Riehm v. Commissioner of Public Safety 745 N.W.2d 869 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
Riehm v. Commissioner of Public Safety 745 N.W.2d 869 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
Thus, a district court has “considerable discretion in scheduling matters and in furthering what it has identified as the interests of judicial administration and economy.” Rice Park Props, v. Robins, Kaplan, Miller & Ciresi, (explaining that, “while Minn.Stat.
State v. Hart 723 N.W.2d 254 Minn. 2006
State v. Hart 723 N.W.2d 254 Minn. 2006
Indeed, with regard to the scheduling question the district court seemed to face here, we have said that “the district court has considerable discretion in scheduling matters and in furthering what it has identified as the interest of judicial administration and economy.” Rice Park Properties v. Robins, Kaplan, Miller & Ciresi
State v. Lindsey 632 N.W.2d 652 Minn. 2001
State v. Lindsey 632 N.W.2d 652 Minn. 2001
v. Robins, Kaplan, Miller & Ciresi, (noting that “the trial court has considerable discretion in * ⅜ * furthering what it has identified as the interests of judicial administration and economy”).