Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Madson v. Minnesota Mining & Manufacturing Co., 612 N.W.2d 168.

47 citing documents.

In re the Marriage of: Minn. Ct. App. 2026
In Madson v. Minnesota Mining & Manufacturing Co., the supreme court held that “[a]ll parties are entitled to rely on timely motions, which on their face are authorized.” (emphasis added) (rejecting respondent’s argument that a motion listed in rule 104.01, subdivision 2, was filed as “a thinly disguised motion to reconsider” and did not toll the time to appeal).
A25-1854 A25-1856 Minn. Ct. App. 2026
She additionally requested that the district court reconsider 2 Madson v. Minnesota Mining & M anufacturing Co., overruled Lewis in part, but Lewis remains good law for the necessary components of a motion for amended findings.
In the Marriage of: Minn. Ct. App. 2026
Co., see State by Fort Snelling State Park Ass’n v. Minneapolis Park & Recreation Bd., n.1 (Minn. App. 2003) (noting Madson overruled Lewis in part, but that, after Madson, Lewis’s discussion addressing the necessary components of a motion for amended findings remains good law), rev. d
Terry Colton, et al., Appellants, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
In the Matter of: Minn. Ct. App. 2024
Doe 596, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2024
Co., -72 ( Minn. 2000); see also Minn. R. Civ.
Stern 1011 First Street South, LLC, et al., Minn. 2022
In re the Marriage of: Michaela Dojcinovic Bachmayer, NKA Michaela Dojcinovic, petitioner, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
Co., overruled Lewis in part, but Lewis remains good law for the necessary components of a motion for amended findings.
A21-0178 Minn. Ct. App. 2021
Co., (holding that a postdecision motion may toll the time for appeal even if the motion lacks merit).
Paul Nelsen, Plaintiff, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
Co. , (explaining that a motion need not be meritorious to be “proper ,” only procedurally sufficient and of a type authorized by rule 104.01, subdivision 2).
In re the Marriage of: James Patrick Pnewski, petitioner, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
Co., overruled Lewis in part, but Lewis remains good law on the necessary components of a motion for amended findings.
In re the Marriage of: Ariel Theresa Bedner, n/k/a Ariel Theresa Wright, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
Co., (holding time to appeal from summary judgment was tolled by appellant’s motion to vacate under rule 60).
Guardian Energy, LLC v. Cnty. of Waseca 927 N.W.2d 1 Minn. 2019
Guardian Energy, LLC v. Cnty. of Waseca 927 N.W.2d 1 Minn. 2019
At oral argument, the County argued that our decisions in Madson v. Minnesota Mining & Manufacturing Co. , and Rubey v. Vannett , compelled the conclusion that the time limitation for a hearing was a procedural, rather than a jurisdictional issue.
Sherry Baker, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Klapmeier v. Cirrus Industries, Inc. 900 N.W.2d 386 Minn. 2017
Klapmeier v. Cirrus Industries, Inc. 900 N.W.2d 386 Minn. 2017
Minn. 2017
Marriage of Crowley v. Meyer 897 N.W.2d 288 Minn. 2017
Marriage of Crowley v. Meyer 897 N.W.2d 288 Minn. 2017
In re the Marriage of: Sheree Rosett Curry, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Ferdinand Leo Gams, Jr., Respondent/Cross-Appellant v. Steven Ronald Houghton, Appellant/Cross-Respondent. 884 N.W.2d 611 Minn. 2016
Ferdinand Leo Gams, Jr., Respondent/Cross-Appellant v. Steven Ronald Houghton, Appellant/Cross-Respondent. 884 N.W.2d 611 Minn. 2016
Mohrman & Kaardal, P.A. v. Gene Rechtzigel Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Mohrman & Kaardal, P.A. v. Gene Rechtzigel Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Michael Charles Sasse, f/k/a Michael Charles Sasse Penkert v. Kathryn Elizabeth Penkert, f/k/a Delight Bernice Penkert Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Michael Charles Sasse, f/k/a Michael Charles Sasse Penkert v. Kathryn Elizabeth Penkert, f/k/a Delight Bernice Penkert Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Co., overruled Lewis in part, but Lewis remains good law as far as determining “whether a motion for amended findings has the necessary components and, if it does, .
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
City of East Bethel v. Anoka County Housing & Redevelopment Authority 798 N.W.2d 375 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
City of East Bethel v. Anoka County Housing & Redevelopment Authority 798 N.W.2d 375 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
In Re the Welfare of the Children of A.I. 779 N.W.2d 886 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
In Re the Welfare of the Children of A.I. 779 N.W.2d 886 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
Co., (requiring party to “stat[e] the grounds for [posttrial] motion with particularity”).
In Re the Welfare of S.M.E. 725 N.W.2d 740 Minn. 2007
In Re the Welfare of S.M.E. 725 N.W.2d 740 Minn. 2007
Marriage of Rubey v. Vannett 714 N.W.2d 417 Minn. 2006
Marriage of Rubey v. Vannett 714 N.W.2d 417 Minn. 2006
Marriage of Mingen v. Mingen 679 N.W.2d 724 Minn. 2004
Marriage of Mingen v. Mingen 679 N.W.2d 724 Minn. 2004
State Ex Rel. Fort Snelling State Park Ass'n v. Minneapolis Park & Recreation Board 673 N.W.2d 169 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
State Ex Rel. Fort Snelling State Park Ass'n v. Minneapolis Park & Recreation Board 673 N.W.2d 169 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
Co., addressing what constituted a "proper” motion for purposes of Minn. R. Civ.App.
Marriage of Kloncz v. Kloncz 670 N.W.2d 618 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
Marriage of Kloncz v. Kloncz 670 N.W.2d 618 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
Marriage of Mingen v. Mingen 662 N.W.2d 926 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
Marriage of Mingen v. Mingen 662 N.W.2d 926 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
Marriage of Huntsman v. Huntsman 633 N.W.2d 852 Minn. 2001
Marriage of Huntsman v. Huntsman 633 N.W.2d 852 Minn. 2001

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by