Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Marriage of Sudheimer v. Sudheimer, 372 N.W.2d 792.

21 citing documents.

Maple Ridge Homeowners Association, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2024
as authority for the sanctions imposed.
Carol Audrey Jones, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
“The existence of a clear warning by the trial court that dismissal or a similar sanction would automatically result if t he party did not comply with a discovery deadline [is] a significant factor in determining on appeal whether such a sanction was appropriate.” Sudheimer v. Sudheimer
County of Sherburne, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
P. 41.02(a), 41.03; d 792, 795 (Minn. App. 1985) (stating that “existence of a clear warning by the trial court that dismissal or a similar sanction would automatically result if the party did not comply 10 with a discovery deadline has been a significant factor in dete rmining on appeal whether such a sanction was appropriat e”).
In the Matter of the Civil Commitment of: Robert Archie Kunshier Minn. Ct. App. 2017
“Failure to comply with the Rule 6.04 notice requirement is not a jurisdictional defect but may be enforced if prejudice is shown.” d 792, 794 (Minn. App. 1985).
Daniel J. Donahue, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
“The existence of a clear warning by the trial court that dismissal or a similar sanction would automatically result if the party did not comply with a discovery deadline [is] a significant factor in determining on appeal whether such a sanction was appropriate.”
Curtis Trude, (A15-0378), (A15-1863, A15-1864), Glenwood State Bank, counterclaimant, and third party v. Peterson Earth Movers, Inc., Third … Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Curtis Trude, (A15-0378), (A15-1863, A15-1864), Glenwood State Bank, counterclaimant, and third party v. Peterson Earth Movers, Inc., Third … Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Frontier Insurance Co. v. Frontline Processing Corp. 788 N.W.2d 917 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
Frontier Insurance Co. v. Frontline Processing Corp. 788 N.W.2d 917 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
See Breza, 311 Minn. at 237 , d at 922 (willful or without justification); Beal v. Reinertson, 298 Minn. 542, 544 , (specific date for discovery); (moving party must demonstrate prejudice); (warning about possible sanctions); Williams v. Grand Lodge of Freemasonry AF & AM, (isolated event or part of a pattern), review denied (Minn. Dec.
Przymus v. Commissioner of Public Safety 488 N.W.2d 829 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
Distinguished Przymus v. Commissioner of Public Safety 488 N.W.2d 829 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
Citizens State Bank of Clara City v. Wallace 477 N.W.2d 741 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
Citizens State Bank of Clara City v. Wallace 477 N.W.2d 741 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
Chicago Greatwestern Office Condominium Ass'n v. Brooks 427 N.W.2d 728 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Chicago Greatwestern Office Condominium Ass'n v. Brooks 427 N.W.2d 728 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
19, 1986) (identifying warning of possible sanction of dismissal as prerequisite to use of that sanction; discusses cases where prejudice to moving party a factor); (identifying prejudice to moving party in dismissal motion as the primary factor to be considered by trial court).
In Re the Marriage of Nelson 408 N.W.2d 618 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
In Re the Marriage of Nelson 408 N.W.2d 618 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Jadwin v. City of Dayton 379 N.W.2d 194 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Jadwin v. City of Dayton 379 N.W.2d 194 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
this court held these elements to be necessary before pleadings may be stricken: The trial court erred in striking appellant’s pleadings and entering a default judgment against him for failure to comply with discovery without first setting a discovery deadline and clearly warning appellant of the c
Marriage of Hoyland v. Kelly 379 N.W.2d 150 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Marriage of Hoyland v. Kelly 379 N.W.2d 150 Minn. Ct. App. 1985

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by