Legal Opinion

Nordstrom v. Eaton

Court of Appeals of Minnesota

Decided October 10, 2002No. C7-01-2200, C3-02-339PublishedCited by 1 opinion

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

WILLIS, Judge.

In these consolidated appeals, appellant creditor challenges the district court’s decisions (1) denying her motion for leave to file a supplemental complaint against respondent insurer after the insurer’s disclosure in response to a second garnishment summons and (2) granting respondent insurer’s motion for summary judgment in a declaratory-judgment action. Because appellant’s failure to timely move the district court for leave to file a supplemental complaint against insurer after disclosure by the insurer in response to a first garnish ment summons discharged insurer…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Fabio v. BellomoSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1993
  2. Brookfield Trade Center, Inc. v. County of RamseySupreme Court of Minnesota · 1998
  3. State v. JosephSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2001
  4. Buysse v. Baumann-Furrie & Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1989
  5. Ceridian Corporation v. Scsc CorpCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 2000

3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. Corn Plus Cooperative v. Continental Casualty Co.District Court, D. Minnesota · 2006

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API