Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Rieman v. Joubert, 376 N.W.2d 681.

27 citing documents.

In the Marriage of: Sarah Nicole Smith v. Jonathan George Smith Minn. Ct. App. 2026
In the Marriage of: Sarah Nicole Smith v. Jonathan George Smith Minn. Ct. App. 2026
P. 59.03; (stating that the purpose of rule 59.03 is to “start the time” for postdecision motions).
Cheryl L. Stinski, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Johnson v. Johnson 902 N.W.2d 79 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Johnson v. Johnson 902 N.W.2d 79 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Despite the fact that the first of these orders was dated nearly four years ago, its appeal must be considered to be timely filed under Rule 104.01.”); (noting that when “no notice of filing is served, the ...
650 North Main Association v. Frauenshuh, Inc. (Territorial Springs Riverview, LLC, Frauenshuh Sweeney, LLC), Kraus-Anderson Construction Company, Doe … 885 N.W.2d 478 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
650 North Main Association v. Frauenshuh, Inc. (Territorial Springs Riverview, LLC, Frauenshuh Sweeney, LLC), Kraus-Anderson Construction Company, Doe … 885 N.W.2d 478 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
The purpose of rule 59.03 “is to start the time for making post-trial motions.”
In re M.O. 838 N.W.2d 577 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
In re M.O. 838 N.W.2d 577 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
1; -84 (Minn.1985); O’-70 (Minn.1980).
Marriage of Mingen v. Mingen 679 N.W.2d 724 Minn. 2004
Marriage of Mingen v. Mingen 679 N.W.2d 724 Minn. 2004
(“When, however, no notice of filing is served, the 15-day time period never starts and a party apparently has an indefinite period of time in which to make post-trial motions”).
Garcia v. Commissioner of Public Safety 572 N.W.2d 311 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
Garcia v. Commissioner of Public Safety 572 N.W.2d 311 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
In Re the Establishment of County Ditch No. 11 (Bevens Creek) 511 N.W.2d 54 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
In Re the Establishment of County Ditch No. 11 (Bevens Creek) 511 N.W.2d 54 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
United States Leasing Corp. v. Biba Information Processing Services, Inc. 489 N.W.2d 231 Minn. 1992
United States Leasing Corp. v. Biba Information Processing Services, Inc. 489 N.W.2d 231 Minn. 1992
While we have recently discussed the jurisdictional 15-day time limitation for the service of a notice of motion, the *232 last occasion for an analysis of the 30-
Barron v. Hennepin County 488 N.W.2d 290 Minn. 1992
Barron v. Hennepin County 488 N.W.2d 290 Minn. 1992
In Re the Appeal of Saldana 444 N.W.2d 892 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
In Re the Appeal of Saldana 444 N.W.2d 892 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
In Re Estate of Opsahl 440 N.W.2d 185 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
In Re Estate of Opsahl 440 N.W.2d 185 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Levine v. Hauser 431 N.W.2d 269 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Levine v. Hauser 431 N.W.2d 269 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Thomas v. Fey 405 N.W.2d 450 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Thomas v. Fey 405 N.W.2d 450 Minn. Ct. App. 1987