Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite In Re the Brainerd National Bank, 383 N.W.2d 284.

24 citing documents.

A22-0349 Minn. Ct. App. 2022
5 “A rule of civil procedure is inconsistent or in conflict with the provisions of a statute if the essential purpose of the statute would be frustrated by application of the rule.” In re Petition of Brainerd Nat’l Bank
Prime Security Bank v. A&G Investments, Inc. Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Prime Security Bank v. A&G Investments, Inc. Minn. Ct. App. 2015
See In re Petition of Brainerd Nat’l Bank, n.7 (Minn. 1986) (noting the importance of certainty and predictability in real estate transactions).
In re Civil Commitment of Lonergan 811 N.W.2d 635 Minn. 2012
In re Civil Commitment of Lonergan 811 N.W.2d 635 Minn. 2012
If no distinct conflict exists, we apply the rule — unless the “purpose of the [statute] would be so frustrated by an application of the [rule] that the rule and the statute must be deemed inconsistent.” Guillaume, d at 263 ; see also In re Brainerd Nat’l Bank
Phillips v. Dolphin 776 N.W.2d 755 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
Phillips v. Dolphin 776 N.W.2d 755 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
See In re Brainerd Nat’l Bank, -87 (Minn.1986) (holding that the district court had no authority to vacate a decree of title of registered land for excusable neglect under Minn. R. Civ.
TCM PROPERTIES, LLC v. Gunderson 720 N.W.2d 344 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
TCM PROPERTIES, LLC v. Gunderson 720 N.W.2d 344 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
In re Brainerd Nat’l Bank
TIMELINE, LLC v. Williams Holdings 3, LLC 698 N.W.2d 181 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
TIMELINE, LLC v. Williams Holdings 3, LLC 698 N.W.2d 181 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
In re Petition of Brainerd Nat’l Bank, , 289 n. 7 (Minn.1986).
Nieszner v. St. Paul School District No. 625 643 N.W.2d 645 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
Sieve v. Rosar 613 N.W.2d 789 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
Sieve v. Rosar 613 N.W.2d 789 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
In re Petition of Brainerd Nat’l Bank, , 289 n. 7 (Minn.1986).
Leek v. American Express Property Casualty 591 N.W.2d 507 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
Leek v. American Express Property Casualty 591 N.W.2d 507 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
DeGrande v. Demby 529 N.W.2d 340 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
DeGrande v. Demby 529 N.W.2d 340 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
(disallowing Rule 60.02(a) motion because it would frustrate a central purpose of the Torrens Title Act, conclusiveness and indefeasibility of title).
Harter v. Lenmark 428 N.W.2d 596 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Harter v. Lenmark 428 N.W.2d 596 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Krahmer v. Koch, 216 Minn. 421, 423
Application of Chesterman 420 N.W.2d 263 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Application of Chesterman 420 N.W.2d 263 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
104.01 should control unless “the essential purpose of (Chapter 508) would be frustrated by application of the rule.” (citing Guillaume & Associates, ).
Park Elm Homeowner's Ass'n v. Mooney 398 N.W.2d 643 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Park Elm Homeowner's Ass'n v. Mooney 398 N.W.2d 643 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
449, 450 (1921); (trial court does not have jurisdiction under Minn.R.Civ.P.