Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Sullivan v. Spot Weld, Inc., 560 N.W.2d 712.

25 citing documents.

Anthony Evans, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2026
“Rule 60.02 is limited to the specific situations provided for in the rule itself and does not allow for general correction of judicial error.” Sullivan v. Spot Weld, Inc., (quotation omitted), rev. denied (Minn. Apr.
Meadows of Bloomfield Association, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
at 190; see also Sullivan v. Spot Weld, Inc., (concluding that evidence known at the time of the summary-judgment motion should have been produced at that time), rev. denied (Minn. Apr.
Weston Palmer Harbison, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
Motions to reconsider “cannot introduce new evidence into the record.” (emphasis omitted) (citing Sullivan v. Spot Weld, Inc., -16 (Minn. App. 1997), rev. denied (Minn. Apr.
A20-1588 Minn. 2021
See Sullivan v. Spot Weld, Inc., –16 (Minn. App. 1997) (rejecting attempt t o supplement record with affidavit submitted in support of motion to reconsider), rev. denied (Minn. Apr.
A. Darlene Gibson, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
“The district court record cannot be supplemented by new evidence after the court grants summary judgment.” Sullivan v. Spot Weld, Inc., -16 (Minn. App. 1997) (granting motion to strike affidavit submitted with party’s reconsideration request and references to that evidence because affidavit was not part of summary -judgment record), review denied (Minn. Apr.
Dennis Lougee, et al., Appellants, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
And rule 60.02 is not intended as a tool for “general correction of judi cial error.” Sullivan v. Spot Weld, Inc., (quotation omitted), review denied (Minn. Apr.
650 North Main Association, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
See Sullivan v. Spot Weld, Inc., d 712, 716 (Minn. App. 1997), review denied (Minn. Apr.
Anita Haider, as Personal Representative of the Estate of Evi E. Kari v. Kenneth Kari Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Anita Haider, as Personal Representative of the Estate of Evi E. Kari v. Kenneth Kari Minn. Ct. App. 2016
See Reid, d at 420; Sullivan v. Spot Weld, Inc., (“Rule 60.02 is limited to the specific situations provided for in the rule itself and does not allow for general correction of judicial error.” (quotation omitted)), review denied (Minn. Apr.
American Bank of St. Paul v. Coating Specialties, Inc. 787 N.W.2d 202 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
American Bank of St. Paul v. Coating Specialties, Inc. 787 N.W.2d 202 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
115.11 (1997) advisory comm, cmt; see also Sullivan v. Spot Weld, Inc., (noting that district court record cannot be supplemented by new evidence after court grants summary judgment), review denied (Minn. Apr.
In Re Silicone Implant Insurance Coverage Litigation 652 N.W.2d 46 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
In Re Silicone Implant Insurance Coverage Litigation 652 N.W.2d 46 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
Sullivan v. Spot Weld, Inc., review denied (Minn. Apr.
Reid v. Strodtman 631 N.W.2d 414 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
Reid v. Strodtman 631 N.W.2d 414 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
Sullivan v. Spot Weld, Inc., review denied, (Minn. Apr.
Madson v. Minnesota Mining & Manufacturing Co. 612 N.W.2d 168 Minn. 2000
Madson v. Minnesota Mining & Manufacturing Co. 612 N.W.2d 168 Minn. 2000
at 2 (citing Sullivan v. Spot Weld, Inc., rev. denied (Minn. Apr.
Hoover v. Norwest Private Mortgage Banking 605 N.W.2d 757 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
Hoover v. Norwest Private Mortgage Banking 605 N.W.2d 757 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
See, e.g., Sullivan v. Spot Weld, Inc., review denied (Minn. Apr.
Correll v. Distinctive Dental Services, P.A. 594 N.W.2d 222 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
Correll v. Distinctive Dental Services, P.A. 594 N.W.2d 222 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
Ctr., Inc., -86 (Minn.1996) (barring claim under Whistleblower Act where plaintiff alleged same facts and sought redress for same discrimination as asserted in MHRA claim); Sullivan v. Spot Weld, Inc., (barring negligent supervision claim that alleged discriminatory practices, injuries, and damages identical with those in plaintiffs *226 MHRA claim), revieiv denied (Minn. Apr.
Baker v. Amtrak National Railroad Passenger 588 N.W.2d 749 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
Baker v. Amtrak National Railroad Passenger 588 N.W.2d 749 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
Sullivan v. Spot Weld, Inc., review denied (Minn. Apr.
Wessin v. Archives Corp. 581 N.W.2d 380 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
Wessin v. Archives Corp. 581 N.W.2d 380 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
Cf. Sullivan v. Spot Weld, Inc., (parties cannot supplement district court record after court grants summary judgment), review denied (Minn. Apr.