Sand v. School Serv. Emp. Un., Local 284

33 Citing cases

  1. Bentonize, Inc. v. Green

    431 N.W.2d 579 (Minn. Ct. App. 1988)   Cited 31 times

    (4) that no substantial prejudice will result to the opponent. See Conley v. Downing, 321 N.W.2d 36, 40 (Minn. 1982); Sand v. School Service Employees Union Local 284, 402 N.W.2d 183, 186 (Minn.Ct.App. 1987), pet. for rev. denied (Minn. April 29, 1987).

  2. Galatovich v. Watson

    412 N.W.2d 758 (Minn. Ct. App. 1987)   Cited 24 times
    Holding due-diligence prong was met where defendant contacted attorney upon receipt of default judgment, attorney sought to resolve matter, and filed motion to vacate judgment five months after its entry

    Reopening of default judgments is to be liberally undertaken so that disputes can be resolved on their merits. Sand v. School Service Employees Union, Local 284, 402 N.W.2d 183, 186 (Minn.Ct.App. 1987), pet. for rev. denied (Minn. April 29, 1987) (citing Hinz v. Northland Milk Ice Cream Co., 237 Minn. 28, 30, 53 N.W.2d 454, 455-56 (1952)).

  3. Safeco Ins. Co. v. Holmgren Bldg. Repair, Inc.

    946 N.W.2d 638 (Minn. Ct. App. 2020)   Cited 5 times

    In doing so, it did not abuse its discretion by concluding that this email exchange did not suffice as a reasonable excuse for the failure to timely file the action. In support of this argument, Safeco cites Sand v. Sch. Serv. Emps. Union, Local 284 , 402 N.W.2d 183 (Minn. App. 1987), review denied (Minn. Apr. 29, 1987).

  4. EUL v. A A LIQUORS OF ST. CLOUD

    No. C6-99-517 (Minn. Ct. App. Oct. 12, 1999)   Cited 2 times

    Reopening of default judgments is to be liberally undertaken so that disputes can be resolved on their merits. Sand v. School Serv. EmployeesUnion, Local 284, 402 N.W.2d 183, 186 (Minn.App. 1987) (citing Hinz v.Northland Milk Ice Cream Co., 237 Minn. 28, 30, 53 N.W.2d 454, 455-56 (1952)), review denied (Minn. Apr. 29, 1987).

  5. Halter v. Univ. of Minn. Bd. of Regents

    410 N.W.2d 50 (Minn. Ct. App. 1987)   Cited 3 times
    In Halter v. Bd. of Regents of the Univ. of Minnesota, 410 N.W.2d 50, 51-52 (Minn.App. 1987), the court of appeals incorrectly characterized appeals in Sand, Rose, and Armstrong, as being from dismissals.

    1. Most of the decisions of this court have applied a Rule 60.02 analysis in reviewing the trial court's denial of a motion to vacate the dismissal. See, e.g., Charson v. Temple Israel, 405 N.W.2d 895, 897 (Minn.Ct.App. 1987) (Rule 60.02 relief is not limited to default judgments and "the same four-part test applies where a plaintiff seeks to vacate the dismissal of an action on the grounds of excusable neglect"), pet. for rev. granted, (Minn. July 15, 1987); Sand v. School Service Employees Union, Local 284, 402 N.W.2d 183, 186 (Minn.Ct.App. 1987), pet. for rev. denied, (Minn. April 29, 1987). Under Rule 60.02, a court may relieve a party from a final judgment for "[m]istake, inadvertence, surprise or excusable neglect" or "any other reason justifying relief from the operation of the judgment."

  6. Charson v. Temple Israel

    419 N.W.2d 488 (Minn. 1988)   Cited 129 times
    Holding that the district court abused its discretion by denying relief under Rule 60.02 when a movant had “met the burden of clearly demonstrating the existence of the four elements of the Finden analysis”

    This court has employed the Rule 60.02 analysis to grant relief in vacating a default judgment, Finden v. Klaas, 268 Minn. 268, 128 N.W.2d 748 (1964), and in reversing a summary judgment, Conley v. Downing, 321 N.W.2d 36 (Minn. 1982). The court of appeals has employed the Rule 60.02 analysis not only to sustain a refusal to vacate the judgment of dismissal in this case, but also to vacate a judgment of dismissal on the grounds of excusable neglect in Sand v. School Serv. Employees Union, Local 284, 402 N.W.2d 183 (Minn.App. 1987) (petition for further review denied, April 29, 1987). See also, Rose v. Neubauer, 407 N.W.2d 727 (Minn.App. 1987); Peterson v. Texas Terrace Convalescent Center, 408 N.W.2d 924 (Minn.App. 1987); Armstrong v. Heckman, 409 N.W.2d 27 (Minn.App. 1987).

  7. Engh v. Culver

    No. A18-0795 (Minn. Ct. App. Jul. 1, 2019)

    A party seeking relief under Minn. R. Civ. P. 60.02 must show "that no substantial prejudice will result to the opponent." Sand v. Sch. Serv. Emps. Union, Local 284, 402 N.W.2d 183, 186 (Minn. App. 1987), review denied (Minn. Apr. 29, 1987).

  8. Cole v. Wutzke

    868 N.W.2d 925 (Minn. Ct. App. 2015)   Cited 2 times

    And, in addition to cases of attorney inadvertence, we have applied this rule in cases in which attorneys have misapprehended the applicability of procedural requirements. See Lysholm v. Karlos, 414 N.W.2d 773, 775 (Minn.App.1987) (treating as excusable neglect attorney's failure to file certificate of readiness based on belief that rule did not apply to case stricken from trial calendar by stipulation of parties); Sand v. Sch. Serv. Emps. Union, Local 284, 402 N.W.2d 183, 186–87 (Minn.App.1987) (same, based on attorney's belief that action had been stayed), review denied (Minn. Apr. 29, 1988).

  9. THAO v. KARMA ENTERTAINMENT, LLC

    No. A10-1998 (Minn. Ct. App. Jul. 18, 2011)

    A party seeking relief under Minn. R. Civ. P. 60.02(1) "must show . . . that no substantial prejudice will result to the opponent." Sand v. Sch. Serv. Employees Union, Local 284, 402 N.W.2d 183, 186 (Minn. App. 1987), review denied (Minn. Apr. 29, 1987).

  10. Vann v. Dakota Cnty. Comm. Dev. Agency

    No. A08-0362 (Minn. Ct. App. Apr. 14, 2009)

    In other contexts, failure to take prompt action is a factor considered in awarding relief from a judgment. See, e.g., Sand v. School Service Employees Union, 402 N.W.2d 183,186 (Minn.App. 1987) (party seeking relief from judgment under Minn. R. Civ. P. 60.02 must show "that it has acted with due diligence after notice of entry of judgment"), review denied (Minn. April 29, 2987); Howard v. Frondell, 387 N.W.2d 205, 208 (Minn.App. 1986) (upholding default judgment partly because defaulting party, which had not received notice of hearing on default motion, had "no sensible excuse for [its] failure to answer"), review denied (Minn. July 31, 1986).