Legal Opinion
Roehrdanz v. Brill
Supreme Court of Minnesota
Decided July 15, 2004No. CX-03-137PublishedCited by 16 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
MEYER, Justice.
We are asked to decide the proper method for service of a demand to remove a conciliation court action to district court. The court of appeals held that service by mail of a demand for removal to district court is not effective unless the responding party returns an acknowledgment of service as required by Minn. R. Civ. P. 4.05. We reverse and hold that a party appealing a conciliation court judgment may effectively serve a demand for removal by mail without receiving an acknowledgment of service. We also hold that the district court did not abuse its discretion in…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Fletcher v. St. Paul Pioneer PressSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1999
- Finden v. KlaasSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1964
- Patterson v. Wu Family Corp.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 2000
- Charson v. Temple IsraelSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1988
- Nguyen v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1997
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by16 opinions
- Laura L. Walsh v. U.S. Bank, N.A.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 2014
- SHAMROCK DEVELOPMENT, INC. v. SmithSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2008
- Ferdinand Leo Gams, Jr., Respondent/Cross-Appellant v. Steven Ronald Houghton, Appellant/Cross-Respondent.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 2016
- In re Application of Skyline Materials, Ltd.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 2013
- Northland Temporaries, Inc. v. TurpinCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 2008
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.