Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite City of Barnum v. Sabri, 657 N.W.2d 201.

47 citing documents.

In re the Estate of Clarence Vatthauer, Deceased, In re the Estate of Fern S. Vatthauer, Deceased Minn. Ct. App. 2026
In the Matter of the Civil Commitment of: Stephen Lyle Love Minn. Ct. App. 2026
“The burden of proof in a proceeding under Rule 60.02 is on the party seeking relief.”
In the Matter of the Civil Commitment of: Thomas Hurl Bolter Minn. Ct. App. 2026
Under Rule 60.02(e), a district court must “determine whether changed circumstances exist and, if so, whether they render it inequitable for the judgment to have prospective application.” City of Barnum v. Sabri
In the Matter of the Civil Commitment of: Kevin Boyd Nelson Minn. Ct. App. 2026
Kevin Christensen v. CentraCare Health System, d/b/a St. Cloud Hospital Recovery Plus Minn. Ct. App. 2026
In the Matter of the Civil Commitment of: David Wayne Hamilton Minn. Ct. App. 2026
d 201, 205 (Minn. App. 2003).
In the Matter of the Civil Commitment of: Christopher Loyd Ivey Minn. Ct. App. 2026
In the Matter of the Civil Commitment of: Christopher Loyd Ivey Minn. Ct. App. 2026
In the Matter of the Civil Commitment of: Guy Israel Greene Minn. Ct. App. 2025
As relevant here, to be entitled to relief, the moving party must establish there have been “changes in the relevant decisional law.” Moen, d at 49 (quotation omitted); (stating “[t]he burden of proof in a proceeding under rule 60.02 is on the party seeking relief”).
In the Matter of the Civil Commitment of: Edward Everett Urbanek Minn. Ct. App. 2025
In the Matter of the Civil Commitment of: Edward Everett Urbanek Minn. Ct. App. 2025
When deciding a rule 60.02(e) motion, the district court must “determine whether changed circumstances exist and, if so, whether they render it inequitable for the judgment to have prospective application,” which “must be determined on a case-by-case basis.”
In the Matter of the Civil Commitment of: Jeremiah Jerome Johnson Minn. Ct. App. 2025
In the Matter of the Civil Commitment of: Jeremiah Jerome Johnson Minn. Ct. App. 2025
Under rule 60.02(e)-(f), a district court must “determine whether changed circumstances exist and, if so, whether they render it inequitable for the judgment to have prospective application.”
In the Matter of: Michael Dale Benson Minn. Ct. App. 2025
Maria Olson, et al v. Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP Minn. Ct. App. 2024
We therefore conclude that the district court did not err by determining that the Olsons failed, as a matter of law, to present evidence that Hinshaw made “a false representation of a past or existing material fact.” Cold Spring Granite Co., d at 5 in which this court held that the burden to prove fraud is on the party seeking relief from a judgment.
Advantage Financial, LLC v. Janice C. Marschel as Trustee for the Janice C. Marschel Revocable Trust, et al Minn. Ct. App. 2022
“The burden of proof in a proceeding under Rule 60.02 is on the party seeking relief.”
Lariat Companies, Inc. v. Barbara Wigley, Michael Wigley Minn. Ct. App. 2020
In re the Matter of: Jennifer Lynn Gaughan v. Patrick Michael Gaughan Minn. Ct. App. 2019
6a, in order to extend the stipulated OFP for the agreed-upon “one additional year.” It correctly noted that, “[t]he burden of proof in a proceeding under Rule 60.02 is on the party seeking relief.”
In re Commitment of Johnson 931 N.W.2d 649 Minn. Ct. App. 2019
In re Commitment of Johnson 931 N.W.2d 649 Minn. Ct. App. 2019
City of Barnum v. Sabri , , 207 (Minn. App. 2003).
Buck Blacktop, Inc. v. Gary Contracting and Trucking Company, LLC 929 N.W.2d 12 Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Buck Blacktop, Inc. v. Gary Contracting and Trucking Company, LLC 929 N.W.2d 12 Minn. Ct. App. 2019
City of Barnum v. Sabri , , 207 (Minn. App. 2003).
Kenneth Wayne Carlson v. Commissioner of Public Safety Minn. Ct. App. 2019
“The burden of proof in a proceeding under Rule 60.02 is on the party seeking relief.”
Dennis Lougee, et al v. Craig Eugene Pehrson Minn. Ct. App. 2019
650 North Main Association v. Frauenshuh, Inc., Territorial Springs Riverview, LLC, et al., Kraus-Anderson Construction Company, Doe Affiliates … Minn. Ct. App. 2018
24, 2018); (reviewing ruling on rule 60.02 motion).
In the Matter of the Civil Commitment of: Robert Archie Kunshier Minn. Ct. App. 2017
In the Matter of the Civil Commitment of: Peter Allan aka Peter Allan George Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota by its Minnesota Pollution Control Agency v. Diane C. Anderson, et al Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota by its Minnesota Pollution Control Agency v. Diane C. Anderson, et al Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Co., 219 Minn. 315, 318–19, d 201, 205 (Minn. App. 2003) (“A consent decree, while prospective in its effect, is the product of a negotiated agreement similar [to] a contract.”).
Maria F. Olson, et al v. James Scott Kent, et al. Defendants, Peoples National Bank of Mora Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Maria F. Olson, et al v. James Scott Kent, et al. Defendants, Peoples National Bank of Mora Minn. Ct. App. 2016
(“The burden of proof in a proceeding under Rule 60.02 is on the party seeking relief.”).
In the Matter of the Civil Commitment of: Steven Merrill Hogy Minn. Ct. App. 2016
In the Matter of the Civil Commitment of: Steven Merrill Hogy Minn. Ct. App. 2016
“Questions of civil procedure present issues of law, which we review de novo.”
Shauna Marie Krupicka v. Paul John Hassinger Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Shauna Marie Krupicka v. Paul John Hassinger Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Joseph Molesky, et al v. John L. Trebesch, et al., Sheila P. Sabas, et al Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Joseph Molesky, et al v. John L. Trebesch, et al., Sheila P. Sabas, et al Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Pearlene Willis v. Larkins Construction, LLC Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Pearlene Willis v. Larkins Construction, LLC Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Marlon Terrell Pratt Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Marlon Terrell Pratt Minn. Ct. App. 2015
-06 (Minn. App. 2003) (explaining that parties can negotiate an agreement in a civil case and enter a consent decree, which “does not represent the judgment of the court”).
Insulation Distributors, Inc. v. William J. Bourque, Jr., et al Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Insulation Distributors, Inc. v. William J. Bourque, Jr., et al Minn. Ct. App. 2015
In the Matter of the Civil Commitment of: Hollis John Larson Minn. Ct. App. 2014
In the Matter of the Civil Commitment of: Hollis John Larson Minn. Ct. App. 2014
In re the Civil Commitment of Moen 837 N.W.2d 40 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
In re the Civil Commitment of Moen 837 N.W.2d 40 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
The third clause of rule 60.02(e) reflects “the historic power of the court of equity to modify its decree in light of changed circumstances.”