Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Charson v. Temple Israel, 419 N.W.2d 488.

88 citing documents.

Kern v. Janson 800 N.W.2d 126 Minn. 2011
Kern v. Janson 800 N.W.2d 126 Minn. 2011
Co., (referring to the provisions in Rule 60.02 as “discretionary provisions”); (“Rule 60.02 specifically provides that a trial court has discretionary power to grant relief, not only from the order but also from a final judgment.”).
Northland Temporaries, Inc. v. Turpin 744 N.W.2d 398 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
Northland Temporaries, Inc. v. Turpin 744 N.W.2d 398 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
Black v. Rimmer 700 N.W.2d 521 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
Black v. Rimmer 700 N.W.2d 521 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
Roehrdanz v. Brill 682 N.W.2d 626 Minn. 2004
Roehrdanz v. Brill 682 N.W.2d 626 Minn. 2004
Zaffke v. Wallestad 642 N.W.2d 757 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
Zaffke v. Wallestad 642 N.W.2d 757 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
In Re the Welfare of the Children of Coats 633 N.W.2d 505 Minn. 2001
In Re the Welfare of the Children of Coats 633 N.W.2d 505 Minn. 2001
Marriage of Haefele v. Haefele 621 N.W.2d 758 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
Marriage of Haefele v. Haefele 621 N.W.2d 758 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
(explaining reviewing courts’ reluctance to punish client for attorney’s oversight).
Marriage of Lund v. Lund 615 N.W.2d 860 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
Marriage of Lund v. Lund 615 N.W.2d 860 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
Co., (noting that even where a client’s attorney’s neglect was “inexcusable,” courts are ordinarily loath to punish the innocent client for the attorney’s neglect) ().
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
A. Reasonable Defense on the Merits Before relief will be granted under rule 60.02, the moving party must “establish to the satisfaction of the court that it possesses a meritorious claim.”
In Re Welfare of MH 595 N.W.2d 223 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
In Re Welfare of MH 595 N.W.2d 223 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
(stating that, where the neglect of a client's attorney is inexcusable, and such neglect is purely that of counsel, courts are reluctant to "punish" the innocent client for counsel's neglect).
McClellan v. Goldberg 568 N.W.2d 860 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
McClellan v. Goldberg 568 N.W.2d 860 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
Co., (“Our case law reflects a strong policy favoring the granting of relief when judgment is entered through no fault of the client”); (“ordinarily courts are loath .to ‘punish’ the innocent client for the counsel’s neglect”); Duenow v. Lindeman, 223 Minn. 505, 518 , (“Courts will relieve parties from the consequences of the neglect or mistake of their attorney, when it can be done without substantial prejud
Nguyen v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. 558 N.W.2d 487 Minn. 1997
Nguyen v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. 558 N.W.2d 487 Minn. 1997
Finden , 268 Minn, at 271, d at 750
Carter v. Anderson 554 N.W.2d 110 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
Carter v. Anderson 554 N.W.2d 110 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
Poured Concrete Foundations Inc. v. Andron, Inc. 507 N.W.2d 888 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
Poured Concrete Foundations Inc. v. Andron, Inc. 507 N.W.2d 888 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
Hellerstedt v. MacGibbon 489 N.W.2d 247 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
Hellerstedt v. MacGibbon 489 N.W.2d 247 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
(rule 60.02 used where case was dismissed with prejudice under the order implementing Fourth Judicial District Special Rule 4.03); Collins v. Cochrane and Bresnahan, P.A., (rule 60.02 used where case was dismissed without prejudice under special rule 4.03) which is analogous
Western Lake Superior Sanitary District v. Interpace Corp. 454 N.W.2d 449 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
Western Lake Superior Sanitary District v. Interpace Corp. 454 N.W.2d 449 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
See Hinz v. Northland Milk & Ice Cream Co., 237 Minn. 28, 30
In Re the Estate of McCue 449 N.W.2d 509 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
In Re the Estate of McCue 449 N.W.2d 509 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
A reasonable defense is presented if the moving party “raises a triable issue,” and presents “more than conclusory allegations in [the] moving papers.” (citing In re Livingston’s Estate, 117 Minn. 421, 423-24 , 136 N.W.
Pearce v. Lindstrom 443 N.W.2d 857 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Pearce v. Lindstrom 443 N.W.2d 857 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Hinz v. Northland Milk & Ice Cream Co., 237 Minn. 28, 30 , (applying Him test).
Bentonize, Inc. v. Green 431 N.W.2d 579 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Bentonize, Inc. v. Green 431 N.W.2d 579 Minn. Ct. App. 1988