Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Lund v. Pan American MacHines Sales, 405 N.W.2d 550.

31 citing documents.

Nicholas J. Carney, et al., Respondents, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Lund v. Pan American Mach s. 9 Sales, (“ [D]elays prior to the date of dismissal are irrelevant to this issue.”).
Cornell v. Ripka 897 N.W.2d 801 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Cornell v. Ripka 897 N.W.2d 801 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Machines Sales, (stating explicitly that “delays prior to the date of dismissal are irrelevant”) with Collins v. Cochrane & Bresnahan, P.A., (relying on the passage of time since the action arose).
John Troupe v. Jeff Foster Construction, LLC Minn. Ct. App. 2017
John Troupe v. Jeff Foster Construction, LLC Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Sales, (“[D]elays prior to the date of dismissal 6 are irrelevant to this issue.”).
Curtis Trude, (A15-0378), (A15-1863, A15-1864), Glenwood State Bank, counterclaimant, and third party v. Peterson Earth Movers, Inc., Third … Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Curtis Trude, (A15-0378), (A15-1863, A15-1864), Glenwood State Bank, counterclaimant, and third party v. Peterson Earth Movers, Inc., Third … Minn. Ct. App. 2016
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
In the Matter of the Estate of: Mitzi M. Olson, a/k/a Mitzi Marie Olson, Decedent. Minn. Ct. App. 2015
In the Matter of the Estate of: Mitzi M. Olson, a/k/a Mitzi Marie Olson, Decedent. Minn. Ct. App. 2015
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
Sales, -54 (Minn.App.1987), in support of its claim for relief under Rule 60.02.
Kubiszewski v. St. John 498 N.W.2d 490 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
Kubiszewski v. St. John 498 N.W.2d 490 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
Sales, citing Hinz v. Northland Milk & Ice Cream Co., 237 Minn. 28, 30
In Re the Welfare of B.J.J. 476 N.W.2d 525 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
In Re the Welfare of B.J.J. 476 N.W.2d 525 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
Seiberlich v. Burlington Northern Railroad 447 N.W.2d 896 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Seiberlich v. Burlington Northern Railroad 447 N.W.2d 896 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Lysholm v. Karlos 414 N.W.2d 773 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Lysholm v. Karlos 414 N.W.2d 773 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
However, “delays prior to the date of dismissal are irrelevant to this issue.”
Thomas v. Ross 412 N.W.2d 358 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Thomas v. Ross 412 N.W.2d 358 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Halter v. UNI. OF MINN. BD. OF REGENTS 410 N.W.2d 50 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Halter v. UNI. OF MINN. BD. OF REGENTS 410 N.W.2d 50 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Soderling v. Hickok 409 N.W.2d 73 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Peterson v. Texas Terrace Convalescent Center 408 N.W.2d 924 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Soderling v. Hickok 409 N.W.2d 73 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Peterson v. Texas Terrace Convalescent Center 408 N.W.2d 924 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Armstrong v. Heckman 409 N.W.2d 27 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Armstrong v. Heckman 409 N.W.2d 27 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
(due diligence element satisfied when motion to vacate dismissal was brought within weeks after counsel discovered dismissal).