Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Modrow v. JP Foodservice, Inc., 656 N.W.2d 389.

99 citing documents.

In re the Guardianship of Suad Sharif. Minn. Ct. App. 2026
See Modrow v. JP Foodservice, Inc.
Kelly Sheehy, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2026
See Modrow v. JP Foodservice, Inc.
Natalie Synhaivsky, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
operates as an adjudication on the merits,” Bonhiver v. Fugelso, Porter, Simich & Whiteman, Inc., (quotation omitted) , it is only appropriate when a district court determines that (1) “the delay prejudiced the defendant” and (2) “the delay was unreasonable and inexcusable,” Modrow v. JP Foodservice, Inc., 5 ().
In the Marriage of: Minn. Ct. App. 2025
See Modrow v. JP Foodservice, Inc., (noting that the district court balances this discretion in dismissing a case for failure to prosecute); Minn. R. Civ.
A24-0715 Minn. Ct. App. 2024
Modrow v. JP Foodservice, Inc.
Godfrey Muturi Simba v. Jacqueline Wangeshi Nwachukwu Minn. Ct. App. 2024
Godfrey Muturi Simba v. Jacqueline Wangeshi Nwachukwu Minn. Ct. App. 2024
A district court may involuntarily dismiss an action under Minnesota Rule of Civil Procedure 41.02(a) based on a party’s failure to prosecute if “the delay prejudiced the defendant” and the party’s delay “was unreasonable and inexcusable.” Modrow v. JP Foodservice, Inc., -94 (Minn. 2003) (quotation omitted); see also Minn. R. Civ.
Carl Green dba Signature Capital, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2024
Modrow v. JP Foodservice, Inc., (citing Bonhiver v. Fugelso, Porter, Simich & Whiteman, Inc., ).
Dynamic Energy Solutions, LLC, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
Modrow v. JP Foodservice, Inc.
In the Matter of the Bette R. Peterson Revocable Trust, Dated August 8, 1996, as Amended, In the … Minn. Ct. App. 2022
See Modrow v. JP Foodservice, Inc.
M.A.A.C., Inc., Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
Modrow v. JP Foodservice , Inc.
In the Matter of the Civil Commitment of: Marcus Mable. Minn. Ct. App. 2021
See Modrow v. JP Foodservice, Inc. , ( “No deference is given to a lower court on questions of law.”).
Taofeek Ishola, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
When the district court correctly interprets and applies the law, an appellate court “evaluate[s] the district court’s” dismissal pursuant to Minn. R. Ci v. P. 41.02 “under an abuse of discretion standard.” Modrow v. JP Foodservice, Inc.
In re the Marriage of: James Patrick Pnewski, petitioner, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
Modrow v. JP Foodservice, Inc.
Phillip Musselman, et al., Appellants, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
P. 56.01; see also Modrow v. JP Foodservice, Inc., (explaining no deference is afforded to the district court on questions of law).
A. Darlene Gibson, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
11 is possible that an EEOC investigation tolled the statute of limitations on related state law claims,” citing Modrow v. JP Foodservice, Inc. , n.3 (Minn. 2003).
Quality Companies, LLC, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Valspar Refinish, Inc. v. Gaylord ’s, Inc., Modrow v. JP Foodservice, Inc.
Princeton Auto Center Inc. DLR 22118, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Modrow v. JP Foodservice, Inc.
County of Sherburne, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Modrow v. JP Foodservice, Inc.
Sehlstrom v. Sehlstrom 925 N.W.2d 233 Minn. 2019
Sehlstrom v. Sehlstrom 925 N.W.2d 233 Minn. 2019
Modrow v. JP Foodservice, Inc. , , 393 (Minn. 2003).
Brooklyn Park Hotel Properties, LLC, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Modrow v. JP Foodservice, Inc.
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
Modrow v. JP Foodservice, Inc.
Busad Kheyre, et al., Appellants, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
“No deference is given to a lower court on questions of law.” Modrow v. JP Foodservice, Inc.
Cornell v. Ripka 897 N.W.2d 801 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Cornell v. Ripka 897 N.W.2d 801 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
“When the lower court’s decision to dismiss involves the interpretation of a procedural rule, the appropriate standard of review is de novo.” Modrow v. JP Foodservice, Inc.
Juanda R. White, individually and as trustee for the next-of-kin of Deallo D. Felder, deceased, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
“No deference is given to a lower court on questions of law.” Modrow v. JP Foodservice, Inc.
Johnson v. Commissioner of Public Safety 889 N.W.2d 36 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Johnson v. Commissioner of Public Safety 889 N.W.2d 36 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Modrow v. JP Foodservice, Inc.
In re the Estate of: Harold E. Farnes, a/k/a Harold Farnes and Harold Ellwood Farnes Minn. Ct. App. 2016
In re the Estate of: Harold E. Farnes, a/k/a Harold Farnes and Harold Ellwood Farnes Minn. Ct. App. 2016
See Modrow v. JP Foodservice, Inc., (“No deference is given to a lower court on questions of law.”).
Shuqin Liu v. Waymouth Farms, Inc. Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Shuqin Liu v. Waymouth Farms, Inc. Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Modrow v. JP Foodservice, Inc.
Charles Pearson v. Rohn Industries, Inc. Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Charles Pearson v. Rohn Industries, Inc. Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Modrow v. JP Foodservice, Inc.
In re the Estate of: Michael Peter Hanowski Minn. Ct. App. 2015
In re the Estate of: Michael Peter Hanowski Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Modrow v. JP Foodservice, Inc.
A & M Market LLC v. West Side Groceries, Inc., and third party v. Stryker Market, LLC, third … Minn. Ct. App. 2015
A & M Market LLC v. West Side Groceries, Inc., and third party v. Stryker Market, LLC, third … Minn. Ct. App. 2015
“While a defendant is under no obligation to move the plaintiff’s case forward even if delay would ultimately prejudice the defendant, the court should not ignore what role, if any, the defendant played in causing the delay.” Modrow v. JP Foodservice, Inc.
David Charles Widmer v. Dallas Jacob Albertson Minn. Ct. App. 2015
David Charles Widmer v. Dallas Jacob Albertson Minn. Ct. App. 2015
See Modrow v. JP Foodservice, Inc., (“No deference is given to [the district] court on questions of law.”).
Sprinkler Warehouse, Inc. v. Systematic Rain, Inc., d/b/a GPLAWN.com 859 N.W.2d 527 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Sprinkler Warehouse, Inc. v. Systematic Rain, Inc., d/b/a GPLAWN.com 859 N.W.2d 527 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
“No deference is given to a lower court on questions of law.” Modrow v. JP Foodservice, Inc.
In the Matter of the Cross Application of Anthony E. Sampair and Laurie K. Sampair to register the … Minn. Ct. App. 2014
In the Matter of the Cross Application of Anthony E. Sampair and Laurie K. Sampair to register the … Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Modrow v. JP Foodservice, Inc.
Rosso v. Hallmark Homes of Minneapolis, Inc. 843 N.W.2d 798 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Rosso v. Hallmark Homes of Minneapolis, Inc. 843 N.W.2d 798 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
“No deference is given to a lower court on questions of law.” Modrow v. JP Foodservice, Inc.
LeDoux v. M.A. Mortenson Co. 835 N.W.2d 20 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
LeDoux v. M.A. Mortenson Co. 835 N.W.2d 20 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
Modrow v. JP Foodservice, Inc.

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by