Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Roehrdanz v. Brill, 682 N.W.2d 626.

69 citing documents.

Zirnhelt v. Carter 843 N.W.2d 270 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
(concluding that, where a more specific conciliation-court rule conflicts with a more general rule of civil procedure, the more specific rule governs).
Soyka v. Commissioner of Revenue 842 N.W.2d 682 Minn. 2014
Soyka v. Commissioner of Revenue 842 N.W.2d 682 Minn. 2014
Westfield Insurane Co. v. Wensmann, Inc. 840 N.W.2d 438 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
Westfield Insurane Co. v. Wensmann, Inc. 840 N.W.2d 438 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
See, Nguyen, d at 490 ; Northland Temporaries, review denied (Minn. Apr.
In re M.O. 838 N.W.2d 577 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
In re M.O. 838 N.W.2d 577 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
In re Application of Skyline Materials, Ltd. 835 N.W.2d 472 Minn. 2013
In re Application of Skyline Materials, Ltd. 835 N.W.2d 472 Minn. 2013
Ass’n, (whether service of process was effective is reviewed de novo).
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
A motion brought pursuant to rule 60.02 commonly is referred to as a "motion to vacate.” See, 133 (Minn.2011); -32 (Minn.2004); Madson v. Minnesota Mining & Mfg.
In re Skyline Materials, Ltd. 819 N.W.2d 183 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
In re Skyline Materials, Ltd. 819 N.W.2d 183 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
SHAMROCK DEVELOPMENT, INC. v. Smith 754 N.W.2d 377 Minn. 2008
SHAMROCK DEVELOPMENT, INC. v. Smith 754 N.W.2d 377 Minn. 2008
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
-32 (Minn.2004) (evaluating district court’s discretionary ruling on motion to vacate default judgment); Duenow v. Lindeman, 223 Minn. 505, 518 , (reversing order denying motion to vacate because “plain and decisive facts were entirely overlooked by the trial judge”).
In Re the Estate of Kotowski 704 N.W.2d 522 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
In Re the Estate of Kotowski 704 N.W.2d 522 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
(holding that when rule directed service “by first class mail” and district court found actual receipt, service was effective); State v. Pierce, 257 Minn. 114, 115-16 , (“[W]e have long held that, where service is made by mail and actually reaches the party to be served with