Hammer v. Soderberg
The holding in the court’s own words
Under the principles adopted in Mattsen v. Packman, 358 N.W.2d 48 , released today, and under the facts of this case, we conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in vacating the judgment under Rule 60.02(6) of the Minnesota Rules of Civil Procedure.
Quoted verbatim from the opinion — no paraphrase, nothing generated. Not yet human-reviewed. How we find the holding.
Cited by
- Kern v. Janson 800 N.W.2d 126 Minn. 2011
- Jorissen v. Miller 399 N.W.2d 82 Minn. 1987
- Haukland v. Peterson 396 N.W.2d 79 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
- Qualy v. MacDonald 395 N.W.2d 423 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
- Jorissen v. Miller 386 N.W.2d 777 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
- Lemkau v. Fout 385 N.W.2d 418 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
- Percy v. Hofius 370 N.W.2d 490 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Authorities cited
Identified automatically; this list may not be exhaustive.
- Mattsen v. Packman 358 N.W.2d 48
Opinion text
COYNE, Justice. Daniel Hammer was injured when his automobile, which was being driven by his wife, collided with a vehicle owned by Thomas Soderberg. Hammer unsuccessfully sought to recover his property damage in conciliation court. He later brought an action in district court to recover damages on account of his personal injuries. In response to a motion by Soderberg for summary judgment based on the doctrine of res judicata, Hammer obtained a vacation of the conciliation court judgment. So-derberg appeals from the order vacating the judgment. Under the principles adopted in Mattsen v. Packman, 358 N.W.2d 48 , released today, and under the facts of this case, we conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in vacating the judgment under Rule 60.02(6) of the Minnesota Rules of Civil Procedure. Affirmed. TODD, J., concurs in the result.