Cited by
Opinions in Minnesota that cite Baker v. Amtrak National Railroad Passenger, 588 N.W.2d 749.
-
Solvay Hospice House, Respondent,
Minn. Ct. App. 2026
Passenger Corp., this court held that the district court ’s denial of a party’s request to bring a motion to reconsider was not appealable because, at the time the party made his request, “his action had been determined and judgment had been entered[, so n]o further action by the [district] court was needed to permit [him] to take an appeal.”
- Followed Justin Mann, et al., Appellants, Minn. Ct. App. 2026
- Robert E. Villanueva v. Circle K Stores Inc. Minn. Ct. App. 2025
- Robert E. Villanueva v. Circle K Stores Inc. Minn. Ct. App. 2025
-
Randy Dale Sixta, Appellant, vs. Lincoln County Sheriff’s Office, Respondent
Minn. Ct. App. 2025
Passenger Corp., (noting that denial of request for reconsideration, even if construed as an order, was not appealable under Minnesota Rules of Civil Appellate Procedure 103.03 because the denial “neither determined Baker’s action nor prevented a judgment from which Baker could appeal”); Superior Shores Lake
- Demo Unlimited Incorporated, et al., Respondents, Minn. Ct. App. 2024
- Tiffany Hall, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
-
State of Minnesota, Respondent,
Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Passenger Corp. , (concluding that motion to reconsider is not an appealable order under Minn. R. Civ.
- Anderson v. Indep. Sch. Dist. 696 924 N.W.2d 911 Minn. Ct. App. 2019
-
Anderson v. Indep. Sch. Dist. 696
924 N.W.2d 911
Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Passenger Corp. , , 755 (Minn. App. 1999).
- Buhl v. State 922 N.W.2d 435 Minn. Ct. App. 2019
- Buhl v. State 922 N.W.2d 435 Minn. Ct. App. 2019
- Sherwood Forest, Inc., Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
- Anita J. Howard, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
- Explained Bethany Good, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
- Kim T. Poole v. Soo Line Railroad Company d/b/a Canadian Pacific Minn. Ct. App. 2016
-
Kim T. Poole v. Soo Line Railroad Company d/b/a Canadian Pacific
Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Passenger Corp., (“Granting a new trial is left largely to the discretion of the [district] court, and a [district] court’s decision will be reversed only for a clear abuse of discretion.”); see also Clifford, d at 687 (“A district court is in a better position than an appellate court to assess wheth
- Sharon Lee Brendalen, Nathan Daniel Watschke v. Laxman Sundae Minn. Ct. App. 2014
-
Sharon Lee Brendalen, Nathan Daniel Watschke v. Laxman Sundae
Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Passenger Corp., we held that the district court’s denial of a party’s request to bring a motion to reconsider was not appealable because at the time the party made his request, “his action had been determined and judgment had been entered[, so n]o further action by the trial court was needed to permit [him] to take an appeal.”
- Kyute v. Auslund 668 N.W.2d 698 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
- Kyute v. Auslund 668 N.W.2d 698 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
- Astleford Equipment Co. v. Navistar International Transportation Corp. 611 N.W.2d 33 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
- Astleford Equipment Co. v. Navistar International Transportation Corp. 611 N.W.2d 33 Minn. Ct. App. 2000