Karels v. American Family Mutual Insurance Co.
Also decided on this docket: Minn., February 14, 1986 381 N.W.2d 441
Cited by
- In re the Marriage of: Minn. Ct. App. 2018
- In re the Marriage of: Tracy Wong Belcher, petitioner, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
- In re the Marriage of: Mary Patricia Myhre v. Steven Kenneth Myhre Minn. Ct. App. 2016
- In re the Marriage of: Jodi Ann Larson v. Brian Allen Larson Minn. Ct. App. 2015
- Schisel v. Schisel 762 N.W.2d 265 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
- Marriage of Sefkow v. Sefkow 427 N.W.2d 203 Minn. 1988
- Marriage of Sefkow v. Sefkow 413 N.W.2d 127 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
- Marriage of Veit v. Veit 413 N.W.2d 601 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
- Marriage of Flynn v. Flynn 402 N.W.2d 111 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
- Marriage of Barrett v. Barrett 394 N.W.2d 274 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
- Marriage of Erler v. Erler 390 N.W.2d 316 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
- Marriage of Kennedy v. Kennedy 376 N.W.2d 702 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Opinion text
ORDER Based upon all the files, records, and proceedings herein, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition of Robert J. Karels for further review of a decision of the Court of Appeals be, and the same is, granted. Briefs shall be filed in the quantity, form and within the *734 time limitations contained in Minn.R.Civ. App.P. 131 and 132. Counsel will be notified at a later date of the time for oral argument before this court. No requests for extensions of time for the filing of briefs will be entertained. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that because the rules of Civil Appellate Procedure do not authorize the filing of a petition for further review by a party designated as an amicus curiae, the petition of Genty and Eggert, P.A. and Richard D. Genty for further review of a decision of the Court of Appeals be, and the same is, denied. However, these parties are authorized to serve and file a brief as amicus curiae, said brief to be served and filed simultaneous with that of the petitioner Karels. The amicus curiae will not participate in oral argument.