Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Riemer v. Zahn, 420 N.W.2d 659.

23 citing documents.

In the Matter of the Welfare of the Child of: J. L. C., Parent Minn. Ct. App. 2018
3 (no prejudice other than that resulting from delay, which does not establish prejudice); Riemer v. Zahn , (no prejudice when delay does not cause evidence to be affected or witnesses to be unavailable); (finding “no prejudice to [the opposing party] other than his costs and the minimal prejudice inherent in every delay”); Hill v. Tischer, 385
In the Matter of the Welfare of the Child of: S. A. P., Parent Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Cornell v. Ripka 897 N.W.2d 801 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Cornell v. Ripka 897 N.W.2d 801 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
See, e.g., Imperial Premium Fin., (finding prejudice where an important witness died); (finding no substantial prejudice where the outcome had not- been substantially affected and witnesses were not unavailable).
City of Vadnais Heights, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
S. Robideau Construction, Inc. v. John E. Hiber, Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. Minn. Ct. App. 2016
S. Robideau Construction, Inc. v. John E. Hiber, Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. Minn. Ct. App. 2016
“In general, when the only prejudicial effect of vacating a judgment is additional expense and delay, substantial prejudice of the kind necessary to keep a judgment from being reopened does not exist.” Black, d at 528 (quotation omitted); (stating that “[t]he only clear result [of vacating particular default judgment] is the delay and added expense, factors which do not equate substantial prejudice standing alone” (citing Finden, 268 Minn. at 272, d at 751)).
Shannon Fogarty v. Ciao Bella Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Shannon Fogarty v. Ciao Bella Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Ferdinand Leo Gams, Jr. v. Steven Ronald Houghton 869 N.W.2d 60 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Ferdinand Leo Gams, Jr. v. Steven Ronald Houghton 869 N.W.2d 60 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
favors a balancing of all the factors.”
In the Matter of the Welfare of the Child of: D. A. J., Sr. and C. A., Parents. Minn. Ct. App. 2015
In the Matter of the Welfare of the Child of: D. A. J., Sr. and C. A., Parents. Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Steven Charles Lind v. William Guenther Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Steven Charles Lind v. William Guenther Minn. Ct. App. 2015
d 659, 662 (Minn. App. 1988) (stating that caselaw “favors a balancing of all the factors” and that “[b]alancing is particularly favored in cases such as this where the weakest of the four factors is the party’s excuse for failing to answer”).
Laxman S. Sundae v. Jacob Salhus, Stacey Smith, Ryan Naddy Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Laxman S. Sundae v. Jacob Salhus, Stacey Smith, Ryan Naddy Minn. Ct. App. 2015
See, (“The record does not indicate that the evidence has been substantially affected or that witnesses now are unavailable.”); -10 (Minn. App. 1984) (holding that a district court erred by vacating a default judgment because vacation would result in substanti
Langston v. Wilson McShane Corp. 758 N.W.2d 583 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
Langston v. Wilson McShane Corp. 758 N.W.2d 583 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
Imperial Premium Finance, Inc. v. GK Cab Co. 603 N.W.2d 853 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
Imperial Premium Finance, Inc. v. GK Cab Co. 603 N.W.2d 853 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
(finding lack of prejudice because “[t]he record does not indicate that the evidence has been substantially affected or that witnesses are now unavailable.”).
Kemmerer v. State Farm Insurance Companies 513 N.W.2d 838 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
Kemmerer v. State Farm Insurance Companies 513 N.W.2d 838 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
(delay and expense do not constitute substantial prejudice because movant can be taxed with costs and disbursements).

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by