Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Reid v. Strodtman, 631 N.W.2d 414.

27 citing documents.

In the Marriage of: Minn. Ct. App. 2026
-20 (Minn. App. 2001) (concluding that, where the district court erred by concluding that a motion had no basis but the moving party would not have been entitled to relief, the district court’s error was harmless).3 3 Father also argues that he was denied due process because he believes that the district co
Solution Blue Inc., a Minnesota Corporation, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2026
While all four Finden factors must be proved, “a weak showing on one factor may be offset by a 5 strong showing on the others.”
In the Matter of: Amy Alyssa Arnemann, on Behalf of Minor Children v. Samuel Morton Post III, ... Minn. Ct. App. 2026
In the Matter of: Amy Alyssa Arnemann, on Behalf of Minor Children v. Samuel Morton Post III, ... Minn. Ct. App. 2026
P. 61; - 20 (Minn. App. 2001) (applying harmless error in the context of a rule 60.02 analysis).
In re the Marriage of: Robert Thomas Nord, A v. Katherine Elizabeth Bowers, B, ... Minn. Ct. App. 2024
In re the Marriage of: Robert Thomas Nord, A v. Katherine Elizabeth Bowers, B, ... Minn. Ct. App. 2024
To be entitled to relief under rule 60.02, the moving party “must establish (1) a reasonable case on the merits; (2) a reasonable excuse for the failure to act; (3) action with due diligence after entry of judgment; and (4) lack of prejudice to the opposing party.” ().
In re the Marriage of: Brenda Anne Kiberu-Kalema, n/k/a/ Brenda Anne Kiberu, petitioner, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
All four factors “must be proven” to establish excusable neglect, “but a weak showing on one factor may be offset by a strong showing on the others.”
In re the Marriage of: Jane Ann Holm, petitioner, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
We review de novo a CSM’s application of procedural rules, and statutes, d 1 Father refers to some of his filings throughout this case as “orders,” but the record does not show any district court or CSM orders or other filings at any point in 2018.
Ruth Crosby, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
P. 60.02; (“Rule 60.02 is intended to correct mistake or inadvertence of a party and does not allow for correction of judicial error.”).
In re the Marriage of: Jennifer Dawn Nyakundi v. Gilbert Ogamba Nyakundi Minn. Ct. App. 2016
In re the Marriage of: Jennifer Dawn Nyakundi v. Gilbert Ogamba Nyakundi Minn. Ct. App. 2016
P. 60.02 must establish (1) a reasonable case on the merits; (2) a reasonable excuse for the failure to act; (3) action with due diligence after entry of judgment; and (4) lack of prejudice to the opposing party.” (applying Finden in a family case).
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
(concluding that movant failed to act diligently to vacate default judgment when movant was aware of hearing date but brought motion to vacate seven months later).
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
All four Finden factors “must be proven, but a weak showing 5 on one factor may be offset by a strong showing on the others.”
Pearlene Willis v. Larkins Construction, LLC Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Pearlene Willis v. Larkins Construction, LLC Minn. Ct. App. 2015
A party seeking to prevail under rule 60.02 must establish the following four factors: “(1) a reasonable case on the merits; (2) a reasonable excuse for the failure to act; (3) action with due diligence after the entry of judgment; and (4) lack of prejudice to the opposing party.”
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.
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
All four Finden factors “must be proven, but a weak showing on one factor may be offset by a strong showing on the others.”
Westfield Insurane Co. v. Wensmann, Inc. 840 N.W.2d 438 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
Westfield Insurane Co. v. Wensmann, Inc. 840 N.W.2d 438 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
“[B]ut a weak showing on one [Finden ] factor may be offset by a strong showing on the others.”
In Re the Welfare of the Children of M.L.A. 730 N.W.2d 54 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
In Re the Welfare of the Children of M.L.A. 730 N.W.2d 54 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
In civil actions, to obtain relief under Rule 60.02, a party “must establish (1) a reasonable case on the merits; (2) a reasonable excuse for the failure to act; (3) action with due diligence after entry of judgment; and (4) lack of prejudice to the opposing party.” (citing Finden v. Klaas, 268 Minn. 268, 271 , ).
Ramsey County v. Suggs 653 N.W.2d 458 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
Ramsey County v. Suggs 653 N.W.2d 458 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
2 may be used to reopen a void judgment); -18 (Minn.App.2001) (noting the possible application of both rule 60.02 and Minn.Stat.