Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Carter v. Anderson, 554 N.W.2d 110.

36 citing documents.

Solvay Hospice House, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2026
“Rule 60.02 reflects a balance between the need for finality in judgments and the need for relief from judgments under very specific circumstances.” Carter v. Anderson , rev. denied (Minn. Dec.
Anthony Evans, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2026
In that connection, rule 60.02 “enable[s] district courts to balance the systemic need for finality of judgments against circumstances when an injustice is likely to result.” (“Rule 60.02 reflects a balance between the need for finality in judgments and the need for relief from judgments under very specific circumstances.”), rev. denied (Minn. Dec.
Ashley Anderson, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2026
“Rule 60.02 can be utilized only if one of the grounds specified in the rule exists.” rev. denied (Minn. Dec.
Reliant Loan Servicing, LLC, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
d 110, 113 (Minn. App. 1996), rev. denied (Minn. Dec.
Otter Tail County, Department of Land and Resource, Plaintiff, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
(); (concluding that party who relied on rule 60.02(a), (f) in the district court could not present rule 60.02(c) argument for first time on appeal), rev. denied (Minn. Dec.
Mark R. Krampf, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
“Rule 60.02 can be utilized only if one of the grounds specified in the rule exists.” Carter v. Anderson , 3 (Minn. App. 1996), review denied (Minn. Dec.
R&S Crossing, LLC, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
Carter v. Anderson , review denied (Minn. Dec.
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
This is so notwithstanding this court's opinion in Carter v. Anderson , review denied (Minn. Dec.
Kenneth Wayne Carlson, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
d 110, 115 (Minn. App. 1996), review denied (Minn. Dec.
Dennis Lougee, et al., Appellants, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
“Rule 60.02 reflects a balance between the need for finality in judgment s and the need for relief from judgments under very specific circumstances.” Carter v. Anderson , review denied (Minn. Dec.
In re the Marriage of: Terry Anne Boggs, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
See Carter v. Anderson , (“Indeed, the drafters included Rule 60.01 to deal with clerical errors without making similar provision for substantiv e judicial errors.”), review denied (Minn. Dec.
650 North Main Association, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Kraus-Anderson cites Carter v. Anderson , , review denied (Minn. Dec.
In re the Marriage of: Robert William Bessenbacher, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
P. 60.02); (stating that rule 60.02 “does not allow for general correction of judicial error”), review denied (Minn. Dec.
State of Minnesota v. T. K. S. Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. T. K. S. Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Rule 60.02, however, provides “exceptions to the finality of judgments under narrowly defined circumstances.” review denied (Minn. Dec.
S. Robideau Construction, Inc. v. John E. Hiber, Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. Minn. Ct. App. 2016
S. Robideau Construction, Inc. v. John E. Hiber, Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. Minn. Ct. App. 2016
(concluding that “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”), review denied (Minn. Dec.
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
Clarinda Low v. Travis Russell Yorek Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Clarinda Low v. Travis Russell Yorek Minn. Ct. App. 2016
or (f) Any other reason justifying relief from the operation of the judgment.” “Rule 60.02 can be utilized only if one of the grounds specified in the rule exists.” review denied (Minn. Dec.
Laxman S. Sundae v. Jacob Salhus, Stacey Smith, Ryan Naddy Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Laxman S. Sundae v. Jacob Salhus, Stacey Smith, Ryan Naddy Minn. Ct. App. 2015
See, (“If the district court fails to apply the four-factor test, this court may apply the test de novo.”); (“[B]ecause the district court did not make any Rule 60.02 analysis or apply the Finden test, we must do so.”), review denied (Minn. Dec.
North Star International Trucks, Inc. v. Navistar, Inc. 837 N.W.2d 320 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
North Star International Trucks, Inc. v. Navistar, Inc. 837 N.W.2d 320 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
(stating that rule 60.02 “reflects a balance between the need for finality in judgments and the need for relief from judgments under very specific circumstances”), review denied (Minn. Dec.
Koes v. Advanced Design, Inc. 636 N.W.2d 352 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
Koes v. Advanced Design, Inc. 636 N.W.2d 352 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
-14 (Minn.App.1996), review denied (Minn. Dec.
Reid v. Strodtman 631 N.W.2d 414 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
Reid v. Strodtman 631 N.W.2d 414 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
review denied (Minn. Dec.
Marriage of Brazinsky v. Brazinsky 610 N.W.2d 707 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
Marriage of Brazinsky v. Brazinsky 610 N.W.2d 707 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
review denied (Minn. Dec.
Lewis v. Lewis 572 N.W.2d 313 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
Lewis v. Lewis 572 N.W.2d 313 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
(“[t]he rules of civil procedure do not authorize a motion for ‘reconsideration,’ nor does such a motion extend the time to appeal the underlying order or judgment”), review denied (Minn. Dee.
Sullivan v. Spot Weld, Inc. 560 N.W.2d 712 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
Sullivan v. Spot Weld, Inc. 560 N.W.2d 712 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
“The rules of civil procedure do not authorize a motion for ‘reconsideration.’” review denied (Minn. Dec.

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by