Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Arzt v. Arzt, 361 N.W.2d 135.

35 citing documents.

Solvay Hospice House, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2026
“Rule 60.02 is intended to correct mistake or inadvertence of a party, or to allow for newly discovered evidence, or for void or satisfied judgments, not to correct judicial error.” Artz v. Artz , see Anderson , d at 722 (issuing writ to vacate order granting relief under rule 60.02 based on legal error because “[f]inality of judicial decisions requires that parties seek relief from judicial error through the appellate process”); see also Anderson v. Anderson , __ N.W.3d __
Ashley Anderson, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2026
11 (“Rule 60.02 is intended to correct mistake or inadvertence of a party, or to allow for newly discovered evidence .
Timothy S. Christenson, et al., Respondents, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
(“Rule 60.02 is intended to correct mistake or inadvertence of a party, or to allow for newly discovered evidence, or for void or satisfied judgments, not to correct judicial error.”).
Anita Haider, as Personal Representative of the Estate of Evi E. Kari v. Kenneth Kari Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Anita Haider, as Personal Representative of the Estate of Evi E. Kari v. Kenneth Kari Minn. Ct. App. 2016
27, 1997); (“Rule 60.02 is intended to correct mistake or inadvertence of a party, or to allow for newly discovered evidence not to correct for judicial error.” (emphasis added)).
Clarinda Low v. Travis Russell Yorek Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Clarinda Low v. Travis Russell Yorek Minn. Ct. App. 2016
at 113 (“Rule 60.02 is limited to the specific situations provided for in the rule itself and does not allow for general correction of judicial error.”); (“Rule 60.02 is intended to correct mistake or inadvertence of a party, or to allow for newly discovered evidence, or for void or satisfied judgments, not to correct judicial error.”).
In re the Marriage of: Vitamin v. Misha Gordin Minn. Ct. App. 2015
In re the Marriage of: Vitamin v. Misha Gordin Minn. Ct. App. 2015
or appeal has expired,” although it “may issue appropriate orders implementing or enforcing specific provisions of the dissolution decree.” (prohibiting district court 4 from modifying property division); -37 (Minn. App. 1985) (same).
Reid v. Strodtman 631 N.W.2d 414 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
Reid v. Strodtman 631 N.W.2d 414 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
Carter v. Anderson 554 N.W.2d 110 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
Carter v. Anderson 554 N.W.2d 110 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
this court went beyond answering the jurisdictional question presented (the motion in Arzt was brought after expiration of the time to appeal the judgment) and stated: Rule 60.02 is intended to correct mistake or inadvertence of a party, or to allow for newly discovered evidence, not to correct j
In Re the Welfare of B.J.J. 476 N.W.2d 525 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
In Re the Welfare of B.J.J. 476 N.W.2d 525 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
Dorso Trailer Sales, Inc. v. American Body & Trailer, Inc. 464 N.W.2d 551 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
Dorso Trailer Sales, Inc. v. American Body & Trailer, Inc. 464 N.W.2d 551 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
Polar cites Anderson v. Anderson, 288 Minn. 514, 519 , for the proposition that rule 60.02(f) “is not intended to allow the district court to reopen or amend judgments merely because the court feels it has committed some judicial error.” Polar further notes that it is reversible error for a trial court to provide relief for judicial error pursuant to
Marriage of Kruschel v. Kruschel 419 N.W.2d 119 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Marriage of Kruschel v. Kruschel 419 N.W.2d 119 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
2 (1986) (“all divisions of real and personal property provided by section 518.58 shall be final”); -37 (Minn.Ct.App.1985) (trial court does not have authority to modify property division after time for appeal of original decree has expired).
Marriage of Nelson v. Quade 413 N.W.2d 824 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Marriage of Nelson v. Quade 413 N.W.2d 824 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Anderson v. Anderson, 228 Minn. 514, 518 , (
Marraige of Hellerstedt v. Hellerstedt 409 N.W.2d 65 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Marraige of Hellerstedt v. Hellerstedt 409 N.W.2d 65 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
-37 (Minn.Ct.App.1985) (trial court cannot modify a division of real and personal property after the original decree has been entered and time for appeal has expired).
Marriage of Hillestad v. Hillestad 405 N.W.2d 436 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Marriage of Hillestad v. Hillestad 405 N.W.2d 436 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Marriage of Sullivan v. Sullivan 393 N.W.2d 521 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Marriage of Sullivan v. Sullivan 393 N.W.2d 521 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Marriage of Thompson v. Thompson 385 N.W.2d 20 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Marriage of Thompson v. Thompson 385 N.W.2d 20 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Marriage of Stolp v. Stolp 383 N.W.2d 409 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Marriage of Stolp v. Stolp 383 N.W.2d 409 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Nordeen v. Commissioner of Public Safety 382 N.W.2d 256 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Nordeen v. Commissioner of Public Safety 382 N.W.2d 256 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Anderson v. Anderson, 288 Minn. 514, 519 , (per curiam)
Marriage of Hanson v. Hanson 379 N.W.2d 230 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Marriage of Hanson v. Hanson 379 N.W.2d 230 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
-7 (Minn.Ct.App.1985), that a trial court does not have authority to modify a property division after the original decree has been entered and the time for appeal expired.