Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Uselman v. Uselman, 464 N.W.2d 130.

254 citing documents.

Lyman Lumber Co. v. Favorite Construction Co. 524 N.W.2d 484 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
Lyman Lumber Co. v. Favorite Construction Co. 524 N.W.2d 484 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
(party must have “fair notice” of the possibility of sanctions under rule 11).
Patton v. Newmar Corp. 520 N.W.2d 4 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
Patton v. Newmar Corp. 520 N.W.2d 4 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
§ 549.21 and rule 11 sanctions are necessarily based on bad faith, -41 (Minn.1990); pet.
International Financial Services, Inc. v. Franz 515 N.W.2d 379 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
International Financial Services, Inc. v. Franz 515 N.W.2d 379 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
Olson v. Commissioner of Public Safety 513 N.W.2d 491 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
Olson v. Commissioner of Public Safety 513 N.W.2d 491 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
Minneapolis Employees Retirement Fund v. Allison-Williams Co. 508 N.W.2d 805 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
Minneapolis Employees Retirement Fund v. Allison-Williams Co. 508 N.W.2d 805 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
Claude v. Collins 507 N.W.2d 452 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
Claude v. Collins 507 N.W.2d 452 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
-42 (Minn.1990) (existence of bad faith is fact question; award of sanctions as result of bad faith reviewed under abuse of discretion standard).
Thuma v. Kroschel 506 N.W.2d 14 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
Thuma v. Kroschel 506 N.W.2d 14 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
A party who survives a motion for summary judgment “with the major claims intact should not be subject to sanctions after trial predicated on these surviving claims.”
Buzick v. City of Blaine 505 N.W.2d 51 Minn. 1993
Buzick v. City of Blaine 505 N.W.2d 51 Minn. 1993
Spicer, Watson & Carp v. Minnesota Lawyers Mutual Insurance Co. 502 N.W.2d 400 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
Spicer, Watson & Carp v. Minnesota Lawyers Mutual Insurance Co. 502 N.W.2d 400 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
Faribo Oil Co. v. Tatge Oil Co., Inc. 501 N.W.2d 699 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
Faribo Oil Co. v. Tatge Oil Co., Inc. 501 N.W.2d 699 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
In discussing the application of Rule 11, -145 (Minn.1990), stated that notice is required before imposing sanctions.
Matter of Trust Created by Hill 499 N.W.2d 475 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
Vegemast v. DuBois 498 N.W.2d 763 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
Matter of Trust Created by Hill 499 N.W.2d 475 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
(quoting Veranth v. Moravitz, 205 Minn. 24, 29 , 284 N.W.
Vegemast v. DuBois 498 N.W.2d 763 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
Buzick v. City of Blaine 491 N.W.2d 923 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
Buzick v. City of Blaine 491 N.W.2d 923 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
Marriage of Rumachik v. Rumachik 494 N.W.2d 68 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
Marriage of Rumachik v. Rumachik 494 N.W.2d 68 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
Parker v. MVBA Harvestore Systems 491 N.W.2d 904 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
Parker v. MVBA Harvestore Systems 491 N.W.2d 904 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
Further, the parties should note that the order in this case granting partial summary judgment, although reversed, if the claimed differences do not exist or are without relevance.
Rosenbloom v. Flygare 487 N.W.2d 546 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
Rosenbloom v. Flygare 487 N.W.2d 546 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
(under “American rule” prevailing party is not entitled to attorney fees just because he won).
Matter of Boss 487 N.W.2d 256 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
Matter of Boss 487 N.W.2d 256 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
In Re the Welfare of D.L. 486 N.W.2d 375 Minn. 1992
In Re the Welfare of D.L. 486 N.W.2d 375 Minn. 1992
“The decision whether to grant a new trial [for judicial bias] * * * rests within the sound discretion of the trial court and will be reversed only for a clear abuse of that discretion.”
Green v. City of Coon Rapids 485 N.W.2d 712 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
Green v. City of Coon Rapids 485 N.W.2d 712 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
ZumBerge v. Northern States Power Co. 481 N.W.2d 103 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
ZumBerge v. Northern States Power Co. 481 N.W.2d 103 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
It is “firmly within the province of the jury as trier of *109 fact to weigh and evaluate expert opinions.”
Empire Fire & Marine Insurance Co. v. Carlson 476 N.W.2d 666 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
Empire Fire & Marine Insurance Co. v. Carlson 476 N.W.2d 666 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
Jones v. Liberty Mutual Insurance 474 N.W.2d 18 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
Jones v. Liberty Mutual Insurance 474 N.W.2d 18 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
(prejudicial error must be shown to obtain a new trial on grounds of an erroneous evidentiary ruling).
Bobey v. City of Minneapolis 472 N.W.2d 337 Minn. 1991
Bobey v. City of Minneapolis 472 N.W.2d 337 Minn. 1991
we announced the procedural framework in which the question of the propriety of the imposition of sanctions should, in the first instance, be addressed by the trial court and then, if an appeal is taken, be examined by a reviewing court.
Muehlstedt v. City of Lino Lakes 473 N.W.2d 892 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
Muehlstedt v. City of Lino Lakes 473 N.W.2d 892 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
Radloff v. First American National Bank of St. Cloud, N.A. 470 N.W.2d 154 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
Radloff v. First American National Bank of St. Cloud, N.A. 470 N.W.2d 154 Minn. Ct. App. 1991