Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite McClelland v. Pierce, 376 N.W.2d 217.

36 citing documents.

A22-1469 Minn. Ct. App. 2023
(holding that right to remove a judge is not permitted upon remand after an appeal because remand is a continuation of the original proceeding); (concluding the right to remove a judge is not permitted for motion to modify child custody b
Christensen Law Office, PLLC, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
OCC, LLC v. Cnty. of Hennepin (In re OCC, LLC) 917 N.W.2d 86 Minn. 2018
OCC, LLC v. Cnty. of Hennepin (In re OCC, LLC) 917 N.W.2d 86 Minn. 2018
See McClelland v. Pierce , , 219 (Minn. 1985) ("Proof of actual bias or prejudice is not required; the affidavit of prejudice itself is enough."); Peterson v. Bartels , 284 Minn. 463 , , 574 (1969) (explaining that a timely affidavit of prejudice filed under previous Rule 63.03 required the trial court judge "to disqualify himsel
In re: The Power of Attorney Granted by Virginia G. Taraldson dated August 23, 2007 to Kathleen P. … Minn. Ct. App. 2016
In re: The Power of Attorney Granted by Virginia G. Taraldson dated August 23, 2007 to Kathleen P. … Minn. Ct. App. 2016
(holding that right to remove a judge is not permitted upon remand after an appeal because remand is a continuation of the original proceeding); Omaha Fin.
State of Minnesota v. Alton Dominique Finch 865 N.W.2d 696 Minn. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Alton Dominique Finch 865 N.W.2d 696 Minn. 2015
636, 636 (1904); d 217, 219 (Minn. 1985) (“[I]f a trial judge refuses to honor an affidavit of prejudice properly filed pursuant to [the civil removal rule], any further exercise of judicial power is unauthorized and a writ of prohibition is the appropriate form of relief.”).
Marriage of Ihde v. Ihde 800 N.W.2d 808 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
Marriage of Ihde v. Ihde 800 N.W.2d 808 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
State v. Dahlin 753 N.W.2d 300 Minn. 2008
State v. Dahlin 753 N.W.2d 300 Minn. 2008
for the proposition that a new trial is a new proceeding that revives the right of peremptory removal.
State v. Burrell 743 N.W.2d 596 Minn. 2008
State v. Burrell 743 N.W.2d 596 Minn. 2008
“The question * * * is not the form of relief but rather the validity of the basis upon which it was awarded.”
State v. Cheng 623 N.W.2d 252 Minn. 2001
State v. Cheng 623 N.W.2d 252 Minn. 2001
(stating that the question “is not the form of relief but rather the validity of the basis upon which [the relief!
State v. Azure 621 N.W.2d 721 Minn. 2001
State v. Azure 621 N.W.2d 721 Minn. 2001
ellant argues that his motion to remove was proper regardless of whether it complied with the rule’s procedural requirements, and that any argument to the contrary is “relentlessly formalistic.” 2 Although “the right to peremptorily challenge a judge shall be liberally construed to safeguard in both fact and appearance the constitutional right to a fair and impartial trial,” (citation omitted), it is equally true that the right of removal “may be waived by failure to seasonably assert it.” Jones
In Re the Marriage of Dobrin 555 N.W.2d 921 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
In Re the Marriage of Dobrin 555 N.W.2d 921 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
Reconsideration on remand “is a continuation of the original proceedings.”
Matter of Burns 538 N.W.2d 162 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
Matter of Burns 538 N.W.2d 162 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
Johnson v. State 486 N.W.2d 825 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
Johnson v. State 486 N.W.2d 825 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
See, (a hearing on modification of maintenance is a new proceeding reviving the right of automatic disqualification of a judge because it requires presentation of evidence); Omaha Fin.
Citizens State Bank of Clara City v. Wallace 477 N.W.2d 741 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
Citizens State Bank of Clara City v. Wallace 477 N.W.2d 741 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
Jones v. Jones, 242 Minn. 251, 261
Marriage of Zweber v. Zweber 435 N.W.2d 593 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Marriage of Zweber v. Zweber 435 N.W.2d 593 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Omaha Financial Life Insurance Co. v. Continental Life Underwriters, Insurance Co. 427 N.W.2d 290 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Omaha Financial Life Insurance Co. v. Continental Life Underwriters, Insurance Co. 427 N.W.2d 290 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Ensco International, Inc. v. Blegen 410 N.W.2d 11 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Ensco International, Inc. v. Blegen 410 N.W.2d 11 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
McClelland v. McClelland 393 N.W.2d 224 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
McClelland v. McClelland 393 N.W.2d 224 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
In November, 1985 (McClelland II), and held that appellant’s January 11, 1985, affidavit of prejudice against the trial judge was untimely.
Maher v. Maher 393 N.W.2d 190 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Maher v. Maher 393 N.W.2d 190 Minn. Ct. App. 1986