Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Kasson State Bank v. Haugen, 410 N.W.2d 392.

36 citing documents.

Ally Bank, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2026
(stating that concessions of counsel may be considered by the district court when deciding a motion for summary judgment); see also Indep.
Shawn Paul Haren, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2026
Kopsell cites two cases in support of her contention that the denial here was an abuse of discretion
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2026
State of Minnesota v. Nicholas Lee Hill Minn. Ct. App. 2026
State of Minnesota v. Nicholas Lee Hill Minn. Ct. App. 2026
This court has held that a district court may commit error if it does not fulfill its “duty to ensure fairness to a pro se litigant by allowing reasonable accommodation so long as there is no prejudice to the adverse party.”
Amber Jemison v. Child Protection Service Minn. Ct. App. 2025
Amber Jemison v. Child Protection Service Minn. Ct. App. 2025
Moreover, all courts have “a duty to ensure fairness” to self- represented litigants, like appellant, “by allowing reasonable accommodation so long as there is no prejudice to the adverse party.” d 392, 395 (Minn. App. 1987); (noting that, while self-represented litigants are generally held to the same standards as attorneys, “some accommodations may be made for [them]”).
State of Minnesota v. Andrew Joseph Casserly Minn. Ct. App. 2025
State of Minnesota v. Andrew Joseph Casserly Minn. Ct. App. 2025
State of Minnesota v. Christopher Lawrence Hunt Minn. Ct. App. 2025
State of Minnesota v. Christopher Lawrence Hunt Minn. Ct. App. 2025
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
PFS MHC LLC, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
Lawrence Merwyn Johnson, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
In re the Matter of: Minn. Ct. App. 2024
Although “[a district] court has a duty to ensure fairness to a [self-represented] litigant by allowing reasonable accommodation so long as there is no prejudice to the adverse party,” a “[w]ithdrawal of counsel does not create any right to continuance of any scheduled trial or hearing.” Minn. R. Gen.
A21-0583 State of Minnesota v. Larry Joe Foster, A21-0070, Court of Appeals Nonprecedential, ... Minn. Ct. App. 2024
A21-0583 State of Minnesota v. Larry Joe Foster, A21-0070, Court of Appeals Nonprecedential, ... Minn. Ct. App. 2024
In re the Marriage of: Anthony Michael Bottolene, petitioner, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
Lavonia M. Bell, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
Kadi Beth Jackson, o/b/o Minor Children, Respondent, vs. Robert Bradley Daniel, Appellant. Minn. Ct. App. 2021
Mitchell Wilfred Suess, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
In re the Marriage of: Minn. Ct. App. 2021
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
However, “[a district] court has a duty to ensure fairness to a pro se litigant by allowing reasonable accommodation so long as there is no prejudice to the adverse party.” Kasson State Bank v. Haugen , see Liptak v. State ex rel.
Clayton Teslow, Relator, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
See Kasson State Bank v. Haugen , (stating that courts have a duty to allow “reasonable accommodation” to pro se litigants so long as there is no prejudice to the adverse party).
Smeeta Antony, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Kasson State Bank v. Haugen
U. S. Bank National Association, successor by merger to U. S. Bank National Association ND, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Kasson State Bank v. Haugen
Katherine A. Gruett, Gary L. Gruett v. Victoria B. Labriola Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Katherine A. Gruett, Gary L. Gruett v. Victoria B. Labriola Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Appellants claim that the court “close[d] the doors to the court house” to them “because they are self-represented litigants.” The district court has “a duty to ensure fairness to a pro se litigant by allowing reasonable accommodations so long as there is no prejudice to the adverse party.”
In re the Guardianship/Conservatorship of: Lorraine Helen Schmidt. Minn. Ct. App. 2016
In re the Guardianship/Conservatorship of: Lorraine Helen Schmidt. Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Rebecca anchors her argument on the duty of a trial court to “ensure fairness to a pro se litigant by allowing reasonable accommodation so long as there is no prejudice to the adverse party.” (noting that “some accommodations may be made for pro se litigants” (quotation omitted)).
Robert L. Follis, Georgia K. Follis v. State Armory Building Commission Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Robert L. Follis, Georgia K. Follis v. State Armory Building Commission Minn. Ct. App. 2015
District courts have “a duty to ensure fairness to a pro se litigant by allowing reasonable accommodation so long as there is no prejudice to the adverse party.”
OSK III, LLC v. HLI, LLC, Timothy J. Lambrecht Minn. Ct. App. 2015
OSK III, LLC v. HLI, LLC, Timothy J. Lambrecht Minn. Ct. App. 2015
In re the Irrevocable Trust of Kristin N. Kuelbs, Donald C. Hill and Edwardena C. Hill, Trustees In … Minn. Ct. App. 2014
In re the Irrevocable Trust of Kristin N. Kuelbs, Donald C. Hill and Edwardena C. Hill, Trustees In … Minn. Ct. App. 2014
We will reasonably accommodate a pro se party so long as no prejudice results, but pro se appellants still must, at the very least, communicate clearly to the court the relief they seek, Carpenter v. Woodvale, Inc.