Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State Ex Rel. Humphrey v. Ri-Mel, Inc., 417 N.W.2d 102.

35 citing documents.

Ritalka, Inc., Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
“The entry of a default judgment is equivalent to an admission by the defaulting party to properly pleaded claims and allegations.” State by Humphrey v. Ri-Mel, Inc., rev. denied (Minn. Feb.
In the Matter of the Welfare of the Child of: T. M. A. and M. J. R., Parents Minn. Ct. App. 2024
In the Matter of the Welfare of the Child of: T. M. A. and M. J. R., Parents Minn. Ct. App. 2024
Mills, Inc., see also State by Humphrey v. Ri-Mel, Inc., (observing that, “[,] the supreme court explained that freedom of contract has not been recognized as a fundamental right sufficient to invoke strict judicial scrutiny, and thus minimum judicial scrutiny is appropriate”), rev. denied legis
In the Matter of the Welfare of the Child of: H.G.D. and J.R.Q., Parents. Minn. 2021
As a result, the “party in default may not deny facts alleged in the complaint when such facts were not put into issue below,” Thorp Loan & Thrift Co., d at 363, and the “default judgment is equivalent to an admission by the defaulting party to properly pleaded claims and allegations,” State by Humphrey v. Ri-Mel, Inc., rev. denied (Minn. Feb.
Minn. 2019
See State v. Standard Oil Co. (Ind.), 568 F. Supp. 556, 563 (D. Minn. 1983); State by Humphrey v. Ri-Mel, Inc., rev. denied (Minn. Feb.
State of Minnesota, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
review denied (Minn. Feb.
State v. Minn. Sch. of Bus., Inc. 915 N.W.2d 903 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State v. Minn. Sch. of Bus., Inc. 915 N.W.2d 903 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
see also State by Humphrey v. Ri-Mel, Inc. , , 112 (Minn. App. 1987) (stating that under the doctrine of parens patriae, the state "may maintain a legal action on behalf of its citizens, where state citizens have been harmed and the state maintains a quasi-sovereign interest"), review denied (Minn. Feb.
In the Matter of Krista Ann Dickenson and o/b/o Minor Children, petitioner, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
See State by Humphrey v. Ri–Mel, Inc., (stating that the entry of a default judgment is equivalen t to an admission by the defaulting party to properly pleaded allegations), review denied (Minn. Feb.
First American Title Insurance Company v. National Title Resources Corp., dba Northwest Title Agency, Co-Appellants, Wayne Holstad Minn. Ct. App. 2016
First American Title Insurance Company v. National Title Resources Corp., dba Northwest Title Agency, Co-Appellants, Wayne Holstad Minn. Ct. App. 2016
A party that “willfully and without justification or excuse” fails to comply with discovery orders effectively “forfeits the right to a trial on the merits.” State by Humphrey v. Ri-Mel, Inc., -09 (Minn. App. 1987) (citing Breza v. Schmitz, 311 Minn. 236, 237, ), review denied (Minn. Feb.
Mark Michael Dwyer v. Tamara Jo Molde Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Mark Michael Dwyer v. Tamara Jo Molde Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State by Humphrey v. Ri-Mel, Inc., review denied (Minn. Feb.
Katie Nesbit v. Antonio Arellano, Emilio Trevino. Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Katie Nesbit v. Antonio Arellano, Emilio Trevino. Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State by Humphrey v. Ri-Mel, Inc., review denied (Minn. Feb.
Hunter v. Anchor Bank, N.A. 842 N.W.2d 10 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
Hunter v. Anchor Bank, N.A. 842 N.W.2d 10 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
28, 1990); State by Humphrey v. Ri-Mel, Inc., review denied (Minn. Feb.
State Ex Rel. Hatch v. Cross Country Bank, Inc. 703 N.W.2d 562 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
State Ex Rel. Hatch v. Cross Country Bank, Inc. 703 N.W.2d 562 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
See State v. Ri-Mel, Inc., (stating that “[cjommon law has also recognized the attorney general has broad powers, which are not limited by statute, and may maintain an action for enforcement of the state’s laws and for the protection of public rights”), review denied (Minn. Feb.
Parr v. Gonzalez 669 N.W.2d 401 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
Parr v. Gonzalez 669 N.W.2d 401 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
“The entry of a default judgment is equivalent to an admission by the defaulting party to properly pleaded claims and allegations.” State by Humphrey v. Ri-Mel, Inc., review denied (Minn. Feb.
Janssen v. Best & Flanagan 645 N.W.2d 495 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
Janssen v. Best & Flanagan 645 N.W.2d 495 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
State by Humphrey v. Ri-Mel, Inc., -07 (Minn.App.
Landview Landscaping, Inc. v. Minnehaha Creek Watershed District 569 N.W.2d 237 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
Landview Landscaping, Inc. v. Minnehaha Creek Watershed District 569 N.W.2d 237 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
Further, unequal application of a statute is not a denial of equal protection unless the challenging party shows “by a clear preponderance of the evidence that there was intentional or purposeful discrimination.” State v. Ri-Mel, Inc. review denied (Minn. Feb.
Berg v. State 557 N.W.2d 593 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
Berg v. State 557 N.W.2d 593 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
3 (“The reply brief must be confined to new matter raised in the brief of the respondent.”); State by Humphrey v. Ri-Mel, Inc., review denied (Minn. Feb.
Molenaar v. United Cattle Co. 553 N.W.2d 424 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
Molenaar v. United Cattle Co. 553 N.W.2d 424 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
See State by Humphrey v. Ri-Mel, Inc., (excluding review of issues raised for first time in reply brief), review denied (Minn. Feb.
Humphrey v. Shumaker 524 N.W.2d 303 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
Humphrey v. Shumaker 524 N.W.2d 303 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
Matter of Ultraflex Enterprises'appeal 497 N.W.2d 641 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
Matter of Ultraflex Enterprises'appeal 497 N.W.2d 641 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
Humphrey v. Ri-Mel, Inc., pet.
State Ex Rel. Humphrey v. Alpine Air Products, Inc. 490 N.W.2d 888 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
State Ex Rel. Humphrey v. Alpine Air Products, Inc. 490 N.W.2d 888 Minn. Ct. App. 1992