Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Valley View, Inc. v. Schutte, 399 N.W.2d 182.

29 citing documents.

Solution Blue Inc., a Minnesota Corporation, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2026
or other proof of a valid defense is provided, the motion to vacate will be denied.” see also Valley View, (stating a valid defense may be presented in an affidavit, answer, or in the record), rev. denied (Minn. Mar.
Don Magnuson, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
But “[t]he relative weakness of one factor should be balanced against a strong showing on the other three.” Valley View, Inc. v. Schutte , rev. denied (Minn. Mar.
Minnwest Bank, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
See Valley View, -86 (Minn. App. 1987) (holding that defendant made a strong showing that plaintiff would not suffer substantial prejudice where plaintiff could not “cite any prejudice other than the added expense,” an action against other defendants was still pending, and defendant offered to file a bond), rev. denied (Minn.
Jeffrey Rangel Perez, et al., Appellants, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
In any event, “[t]he relative weakness of one factor should be balanced against a strong showing on the other three.” Valley View, rev. denied (Minn. Mar.
Cheryl Orcutt, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
However, “[t]he relative weakness of one factor should be balanced against a strong showing on the other three.” Valley View, Inc. v. Schutte , review denied (Minn. Mar.
Pearlene Willis v. Larkins Construction, LLC Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Pearlene Willis v. Larkins Construction, LLC Minn. Ct. App. 2015
See Valley View, (stating a valid 4 defense may be presented in affidavit, answer, or in the record), review denied (Minn. Jan.
Insulation Distributors, Inc. v. William J. Bourque, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Insulation Distributors, Inc. v. William J. Bourque, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2015
See Valley View, review denied (Minn. Mar.
Palladium Holdings, LLC v. Zuni Mortgage Loan Trust 2006-OA1 775 N.W.2d 168 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
Palladium Holdings, LLC v. Zuni Mortgage Loan Trust 2006-OA1 775 N.W.2d 168 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
*177 C. Due Diligence after Notice Due diligence is measured by asking if a party was diligent “after notice of entry of judgment.” Valley View, review denied (Minn. Mar.
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
eakness of his excuse for not answering complaint, made strong showing on other three factors); Spicer v. Carefree Vacations, Inc., -31 (Minn.App.1986) (agreeing with district court that defendant’s excuse for failing to answer was weak but reversing district court’s denial of motion to vacate judgment given strong showing on other three factors); Valley View, Inc., v. Schutte, (concluding that district court abused its discretion in denying motion to vacate judgment because “weak showing on the
Reid v. Strodtman 631 N.W.2d 414 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
Reid v. Strodtman 631 N.W.2d 414 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
Valley View, -86 (Minn.App.1987), review denied (Minn. Mar.
Riley on Behalf of Swanson v. Herbes 524 N.W.2d 523 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
Riley on Behalf of Swanson v. Herbes 524 N.W.2d 523 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
v. Nelson, (action within one-year period provided by rule 60.02 reasonable); Valley View, (acting within six days of receiving notice constituted due diligence), pet.
Riemer v. Zahn 420 N.W.2d 659 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Riemer v. Zahn 420 N.W.2d 659 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Valley View, -86 (Minn.Ct.App.1987); .
Petrich v. Dyke 419 N.W.2d 833 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Petrich v. Dyke 419 N.W.2d 833 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Wiethoff v. Williams 413 N.W.2d 533 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Wiethoff v. Williams 413 N.W.2d 533 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Galatovich v. Watson 412 N.W.2d 758 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Galatovich v. Watson 412 N.W.2d 758 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Reardon Office Equipment v. Nelson 409 N.W.2d 222 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Reardon Office Equipment v. Nelson 409 N.W.2d 222 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Sand v. School Service Employees Union, Local 284 402 N.W.2d 183 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Sand v. School Service Employees Union, Local 284 402 N.W.2d 183 Minn. Ct. App. 1987