Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Heinsch v. Lot 27, Block 1 Fob's Beach, Section 21, Township 69, Range 21 (Unorganized To…, 399 N.W.2d 107.

26 citing documents.

Lawrence Merwyn Johnson, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
But see Heinsch v. Lot 27, (refusing to excuse a self-represented litigant’s procedural misstep).
Eddie Hudson, III, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
ding the law governing the accrual of a cause of action.” Sipe v. STS Mfg., Inc., (quotation omitted); see also Hansen v. U. S. Bank repeatedly emphasized that pro se litigants are generally held to the same standards as attorneys and must comply with court rules.” see also Heinsch v. Lot 27, (noting that “[p]ro se litigants are generally held to the same standards as attorneys” and that “[u]nfamiliarity with procedural rules is not good cause to excuse untimely action” (emphasis added)); - 25 (
Peter Gerard Lonergan, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
Even so, “[p]ro se litigants are generally held to the same standards as attorneys.” Heinsch v. Lot 27, Block 1 For’s Beach
In re the Matter of the Civil Commitment of: Matthew Lee DeRosia. Minn. Ct. App. 2020
Clayton Teslow, Relator, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Although Teslow has n ot challenged the ULJ’s legal determination that these acts constitute misconduct, and although pro se litigants are “held to the same standard s as attorneys,” Heinsch v. Lot 27, Block 1 For’s Beach , we will address it briefly in order to provide a complete analysis to a pro se relator.
City of Vadnais Heights, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
See Heinsch v. Lot 27 , (stating “[u]nfamiliarity with procedural rules is not good cause to excuse untimely action”).
Harper & Peterson, P.L.L.C. v. John W. Seckinger Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Harper & Peterson, P.L.L.C. v. John W. Seckinger Minn. Ct. App. 2017
69, Range 21 (Unorganized Twp.), (Minn. 1 Seckinger’s brother is a professor of law at an academic institution in another state.
Imholte Farms Partnership v. John Kerwin Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Imholte Farms Partnership v. John Kerwin Minn. Ct. App. 2017
1.04; Heinsch v. Lot 27, (stating that pro se litigants are generally held to the same standards as attorneys and that unfamiliarity with procedural rules is not good cause to excuse untimely action).
In re the Marriage of: Dontrell Valerie Thornton v. Herbert Thornton, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2016
In re the Marriage of: Dontrell Valerie Thornton v. Herbert Thornton, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Elbert v. Tlam 830 N.W.2d 448 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
Elbert v. Tlam 830 N.W.2d 448 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
T.D. v. A.K. 677 N.W.2d 110 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
Td v. Ak 677 N.W.2d 110 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
T.D. v. A.K. 677 N.W.2d 110 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
See Heinsch v. Lot 27, (stating pro se litigants are generally held to same standards as attorneys; unfamiliarity with procedural rules is not good cause to excuse untimely action).
Td v. Ak 677 N.W.2d 110 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
See Heinsch v. Lot 27, (stating pro se litigants are generally held to same standards as attorneys; unfamiliarity with procedural rules is not good cause to excuse untimely action).
In RE MARRIAGE OF FITZGERALD v. Fitzgerald 629 N.W.2d 115 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
In RE MARRIAGE OF FITZGERALD v. Fitzgerald 629 N.W.2d 115 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
Heinsch v. Lot 27, Block 1 For’s Beach
Board Order, Kells v. City of Rochester 597 N.W.2d 332 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
Board Order, Kells v. City of Rochester 597 N.W.2d 332 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
See Dempsey v. Meighen, 257 Minn. 576, 579 , (holding submission of appellate court filing fee is jurisdictional requirement); Heinsch v. Lot 27, Block 1 For’s Beach, (concluding failure to submit district court filing fee before expiration of time to appeal from county board’s action was jurisdictional defect).
Davis v. Danielson 558 N.W.2d 286 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
Davis v. Danielson 558 N.W.2d 286 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
Heinsch v. Lot 27, Block 1 For’s Beach
Curtis v. Otter Tail County Board of Adjustment 455 N.W.2d 86 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
Curtis v. Otter Tail County Board of Adjustment 455 N.W.2d 86 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
Heinsch v. Lot 27, Block 1 For’s Beach