Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Peterson v. Eishen, 512 N.W.2d 338.

49 citing documents.

In the Matter of the Welfare of the Child of: D. J. T. and N. L. T., Parents Minn. Ct. App. 2023
In the Matter of the Welfare of the Child of: D. J. T. and N. L. T., Parents Minn. Ct. App. 2023
We also expressly rejected mother’s was controlling.
Court of Appeals Chutich, J. Dissenting, Hudson, J. Rebecca Ellen Bender, Gildea, C.J., Anderson, J. Minn. 2022
(“The same abuse of discretion standard of review applies to decisions under both provisions .”) (overruled on other grounds by Bode v. Minn. Dep’t. of Nat.
Livingston Financial, LLC, as successor in interest to US Bank, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
A district court must vacate a void judgment, “without regard to such factors as the existence of a meritorious defense.” aff’d
In re the Marriage of: Maria Suljic v. Ibrahim Suljic Minn. Ct. App. 2016
In re the Marriage of: Maria Suljic v. Ibrahim Suljic Minn. Ct. App. 2016
–41 (Minn. 1994), abrogated in part by Bode v. Minn. Dep’t of Nat.
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
superseded by rule on other grounds, as recognized in Fed.
Alan B. Fish, P. A. v. Scott Janson Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Alan B. Fish, P. A. v. Scott Janson Minn. Ct. App. 2016
5 responds by arguing that “[Janson] failed to allege sufficient credible facts to the trial court to establish an ‘abode’ by clear and convincing evidence,” –26 (Minn. App. 1993), aff’d
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
(applying cases interpreting rule 60.02 in analyzing motion to vacate orders and judgment in a paternity case governed by Minn. Stat. § 518.145, subd.
Lyon Financial Services, Inc., d/b/a U.S. Bancorp Business Equipment Finance Group with its principal offices at Marshall, Minnesota … Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Lyon Financial Services, Inc., d/b/a U.S. Bancorp Business Equipment Finance Group with its principal offices at Marshall, Minnesota … Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Instead, states that the “reasonable time” requirement does not apply to judgments that are void due to a lack of personal jurisdiction.
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
See, (applying precedent interpreting rule 60.02(d) in construing functionally identical language in section 518.145, subdivision 2(4)), superseded by rule on other grounds, Minn. R. Civ.
Douglas Drews v. Federal National Mortgage Association 850 N.W.2d 738 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Douglas Drews v. Federal National Mortgage Association 850 N.W.2d 738 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
[which] may [only] be overcome by the production of clear and convincing evidence.” - 26 (Minn. App. 1993) (citation omitted), aff’d
301 Clifton Place L.L.C. v. 301 Clifton Place Condominium Ass'n 783 N.W.2d 551 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
301 Clifton Place L.L.C. v. 301 Clifton Place Condominium Ass'n 783 N.W.2d 551 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
An improperly served defendant submits to the district court’s jurisdiction if “the defendant has taken some affirmative step invoking the power of the court *563 or implicitly recognizing its jurisdiction.”
Juelich v. Yamazaki Mazak Optonics Corp. 670 N.W.2d 11 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
Juelich v. Yamazaki Mazak Optonics Corp. 670 N.W.2d 11 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
1 David F. Herr & Roger S. Haydock, Minnesota Practice § 12.17, at 346 (2002) ().
In Re the Welfare of the Children of S.C. 656 N.W.2d 580 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
In Re the Welfare of the Children of S.C. 656 N.W.2d 580 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
a father sought to challenge a default judgment terminating his parental rights eleven years after the final decision.
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
(noting, in context of motion to vacate paternity and support orders for voidness, both rule 60.02 and Minn.Stat.
Marriage of Harding v. Harding 620 N.W.2d 920 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
Marriage of Harding v. Harding 620 N.W.2d 920 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
See, (comparing the rule and statute for purposes of determining whether a motion to vacate was timely), modified on other grounds by Federal-Hoffman, review denied (Minn. Aug.
Bode v. Minnesota Department of Natural Resources 612 N.W.2d 862 Minn. 2000
Bode v. Minnesota Department of Natural Resources 612 N.W.2d 862 Minn. 2000
Imperial Premium Finance, Inc. v. GK Cab Co. 603 N.W.2d 853 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
Imperial Premium Finance, Inc. v. GK Cab Co. 603 N.W.2d 853 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
-26 (Minn.App.1993), aff'd
Galbreath v. Coleman 596 N.W.2d 689 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
Galbreath v. Coleman 596 N.W.2d 689 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
Patterson v. Wu Family Corp. 594 N.W.2d 540 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
Patterson v. Wu Family Corp. 594 N.W.2d 540 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
Bode v. Minnesota Department of Natural Resources 594 N.W.2d 257 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
Bode v. Minnesota Department of Natural Resources 594 N.W.2d 257 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
P. 12.08(c); Lange v. Johnson, 295 Minn. 320
Lundgren v. Green 592 N.W.2d 888 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
Lundgren v. Green 592 N.W.2d 888 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
(citations omitted), aff'd
Marriage of Gorz v. Gorz 552 N.W.2d 566 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
Marriage of Gorz v. Gorz 552 N.W.2d 566 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
Jurisdiction of the court obtains “although [defendant is] improperly served, only where the defendant has taken some affirmative step invoking the power of the court or implicitly recognizing its jurisdiction.” (defendant’s single contact with opposing counsel did not constitute recognition of court’s jurisdiction in paternity action).
Federal-Hoffman, Inc. v. Fackler 549 N.W.2d 93 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
Federal-Hoffman, Inc. v. Fackler 549 N.W.2d 93 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
723, 724 (1921) (citations omitted); (“[A] defendant submits to the jurisdiction of the court” by taking “some affirmative step invoking the power of the court or implicitly recognizing its jurisdiction.”); (making counterclaim and third-party complaint results in waiver of persona
Igo v. Chernin 540 N.W.2d 913 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
Igo v. Chernin 540 N.W.2d 913 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
Marriage of Mesenbourg v. Mesenbourg 538 N.W.2d 489 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
Marriage of Mesenbourg v. Mesenbourg 538 N.W.2d 489 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
Cochrane v. Tudor Oaks Condominium Project 529 N.W.2d 429 Minn. Ct. App. 1995