Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Guillaume & Associates, Inc. v. Don-John Co., 371 N.W.2d 15.

42 citing documents.

Alliant Ventures IX, LLC, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
In the Matter of the Welfare of the Child of: J. L. C., Parent Minn. Ct. App. 2018
does not cause evidence to be affected or witnesses to be unavailable); (finding “no prejudice to [the opposing party] other than his costs and the minimal prejudice inherent in every delay”); (no prejudice where witnesses can be located) ; Guillaume & Assocs., (concluding that opposing party ’s litigation techniques as well as defaulting party’s neglect caused delay).
Jerry Wayne Cole v. Alexander Allen Wutzke 868 N.W.2d 925 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Jerry Wayne Cole v. Alexander Allen Wutzke 868 N.W.2d 925 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Under similar circumstances in Guillaume & Assocs., Inc. v. Don-John Co., this court stated that “[t]his use of the Minnesota Rules of Civil Procedure is contrary to a central purpose of the rules—to secure a just determination of every action.” d 15, 18–19 (Minn. App. 1985) (quotation omitted).
Ferdinand Leo Gams, Jr. v. Steven Ronald Houghton 869 N.W.2d 60 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Ferdinand Leo Gams, Jr. v. Steven Ronald Houghton 869 N.W.2d 60 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
“[T]he relative weakness of one factor should be balanced against the strong showing on the other three factors.” Guillaume & Assocs.
Steven Charles Lind v. William Guenther Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Steven Charles Lind v. William Guenther Minn. Ct. App. 2015
“[T]he relative weakness of one factor should be balanced against the strong showing on the other three factors.” Guillaume & Assocs.
Langston v. Wilson McShane Corp. 758 N.W.2d 583 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
Langston v. Wilson McShane Corp. 758 N.W.2d 583 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
18, 1987); Guillaume & Assoc., (holding that district court erred in entering default judgment because weak showing on excuse factor should have been weighed against strong showing on other three factors).
Northland Temporaries, Inc. v. Turpin 744 N.W.2d 398 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
Northland Temporaries, Inc. v. Turpin 744 N.W.2d 398 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
See Guillaume & Assocs., (recognizing that lay person’s failure to answer in some circumstances may not be unreasonable).
Black v. Rimmer 700 N.W.2d 521 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
Black v. Rimmer 700 N.W.2d 521 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
Hellerstedt v. MacGibbon 489 N.W.2d 247 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
Hellerstedt v. MacGibbon 489 N.W.2d 247 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
While a weak showing on one of the factors mentioned in Charson may be offset by a strong showing on the others, see Guillaume & Assocs., Inc. v. Don-John, Co., we conclude appellant has failed to meet his burden under this test.
Hovelson v. U.S. Swim & Fitness, Inc. 450 N.W.2d 137 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
Hovelson v. U.S. Swim & Fitness, Inc. 450 N.W.2d 137 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
Guillaume & Associates
In Re the Estate of McCue 449 N.W.2d 509 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
In Re the Estate of McCue 449 N.W.2d 509 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
Gelco Corp. v. Crystal Leasing, Inc., (citing Guillaume Associates, ).
Riemer v. Zahn 420 N.W.2d 659 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Riemer v. Zahn 420 N.W.2d 659 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Guillaume & Associates
Wiethoff v. Williams 413 N.W.2d 533 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Wiethoff v. Williams 413 N.W.2d 533 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
See Gelco Corporation v. Crystal Leasing, Inc., Spicer v. Carefree Vacations, Inc., Guillaume & Associates
Galatovich v. Watson 412 N.W.2d 758 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Galatovich v. Watson 412 N.W.2d 758 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Valley View, d at 185 (citing Guillaume & Associates, ).
Schulz v. Milam 410 N.W.2d 845 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Schulz v. Milam 410 N.W.2d 845 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Guillaume & Associates
Peterson v. Texas Terrace Convalescent Center 408 N.W.2d 924 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Peterson v. Texas Terrace Convalescent Center 408 N.W.2d 924 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Guillaume & Associates
Charson v. Temple Israel 405 N.W.2d 895 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Charson v. Temple Israel 405 N.W.2d 895 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
See Guillaume & Associates
Armstrong v. Heckman 409 N.W.2d 27 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Armstrong v. Heckman 409 N.W.2d 27 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
“[T]he relative weakness of one factor should be balanced against the strong showing on the other three factors.” Guillaume & Associates
Valley View, Inc. v. Schutte 399 N.W.2d 182 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Valley View, Inc. v. Schutte 399 N.W.2d 182 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Guillaume & Associates
Gelco Corp. v. Crystal Leasing, Inc. 396 N.W.2d 672 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Gelco Corp. v. Crystal Leasing, Inc. 396 N.W.2d 672 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Guillaume & Assoc., (Minn.Ct.App.
Hill v. Tischer 385 N.W.2d 329 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Hill v. Tischer 385 N.W.2d 329 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
See also Guillaume & Associates, (abuse of discretion standard applied).
Spicer v. Carefree Vacations, Inc. 379 N.W.2d 728 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Spicer v. Carefree Vacations, Inc. 379 N.W.2d 728 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Kosloski v. Jones, 295 Minn. 177, 180 , Guillaume & Associates, (Minn.Ct.