Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Hovelson v. U.S. Swim & Fitness, Inc., 450 N.W.2d 137.

25 citing documents.

Alliant Ventures IX, LLC, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
The district court relied on Hovelson v. United States Swim & Fitness, Inc. in which we stated, “If it is perceived by the [district] court that there is intentional ignoring of process, the additional expense must be viewed in a different light.” , rev. denied (Minn. Mar.
Nathan Adams Busch, et al., Appellants, Minn. Ct. App. 2024
Relief under rule 60.02(f) is “appropriate when the equities weigh heavily in favor of the party seeking relief and relief is required to avoi d an unconscionable result.” Hovelson v. U.S. Swim & Fitness, Inc., - 43 (Minn. App. 1990), rev. denied (Minn. Mar.
Kieu Oanh T. Nguyen, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2024
When a motion is properly brought under clause (f), relief “is appropriate when the equities weigh heavily in favor of the party seeking relief and relief is required to avoid an unconscionable result.” Hovelson v. U.S. 7 Swim & Fitness, Inc., - 43 (Minn. App. 1990), rev. denied (Minn. Mar.
Buck Blacktop, Inc. v. Gary Contracting and Trucking Company, LLC 929 N.W.2d 12 Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Buck Blacktop, Inc. v. Gary Contracting and Trucking Company, LLC 929 N.W.2d 12 Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Hovelson v. U.S. Swim & Fitness, Inc. , , 142-43 (Minn. App. 1990), review denied (Minn. Mar.
Mary Brown, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Hovelson v. U.S. Swim & Fitness, Inc. , 2 (Minn. App. 1990), review denied (Minn. Mar.
Nicholas J. Carney, et al., Respondents, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
What constitutes a reasonable time varies from case to case depending on the facts, because “[t]he very nature of the exercise of discretionary power in cases of this kind is such as to prevent any absolute rule being laid down.” see also Hovelson v. U.S. Swim & Fitness, Inc., (determining that appellants did not act diligently, even though they responded to a complaint nine days after they received notice of default), review denied (Minn. Mar.
John Troupe v. Jeff Foster Construction, LLC Minn. Ct. App. 2017
John Troupe v. Jeff Foster Construction, LLC Minn. Ct. App. 2017
What constitutes a reasonable time varies from case to case depending on the facts, because “[t]he very nature of the exercise of discretionary power in cases of this kind is such as to prevent any absolute rule being laid down.” Pilney v. Funk, 212 Minn. 398, 403, see also Hovelson v. U.S. Swim & Fitness, Inc., (finding that appellants did not act diligently, even though they responded to a complaint nine days after they received notice of default), review denied (Minn. Jan.
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
Hovelson v. U.S. Swim & Fitness, Inc., 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 Hovelson v. U.S. Swim & Fitness, Inc., (stating that when the party “lost” the summons and complaint, the resulting negligence “was caused by [the party’s] own acts and is therefore not to be excused”), review denied (Minn. Mar.
In re the Marriage of: Dawn Marie Mondus Loger v. Cory Scott Loger Minn. Ct. App. 2014
In re the Marriage of: Dawn Marie Mondus Loger v. Cory Scott Loger Minn. Ct. App. 2014
But when a party’s delays are purposeful and the district court perceives that the party is intentionally ignoring the process, “[t]he additional expense must be viewed in a different light.” Black, d at 528 (quoting Hovelson v. U.S. Swim & Fitness, Inc., review denied (Minn. Mar.
Black v. Rimmer 700 N.W.2d 521 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
Black v. Rimmer 700 N.W.2d 521 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
But this court noted an exception to the general rule in Hovelson v. U.S. Swim & Fitness, Inc., review denied (Minn. Mar.
Peterson v. Eishen 512 N.W.2d 338 Minn. 1994
Peterson v. Eishen 512 N.W.2d 338 Minn. 1994
Hovelson v. U.S. Swim and Fitness, Inc., pet.
Marriage of Peterson v. Eishen 495 N.W.2d 223 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
Marriage of Peterson v. Eishen 495 N.W.2d 223 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
Hovelson v. U.S. Swim & Fitness, Inc., pet.
Simington v. Minnesota Veterans Home 464 N.W.2d 529 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
Simington v. Minnesota Veterans Home 464 N.W.2d 529 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
“Relief under this residual clause is appropriate when the equities weigh heavily in favor of the party seeking relief and relief is required to avoid an unconscionable result.” Hovelson v. U.S. Swim & Fitness, Inc., -43 (Minn.App.1990) (citations omitted), pet.
Holman v. CPT CORP. 457 N.W.2d 740 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
Holman v. CPT CORP. 457 N.W.2d 740 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
Cf. Hovelson v. U.S. Swim & Fitness, Inc., pet.