Legal Opinion
Roehrdanz v. Brill
Court of Appeals of Minnesota
Decided October 29, 2003No. CX-03-137PublishedCited by 3 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
WRIGHT, Judge.
After respondent sued appellant in conciliation court for unpaid legal fees, respondent removed the matter to district court, where a default judgment was eventually entered. The district court denied appellant’s motion to vacate the default judgment, finding that appellant was properly served. Appellant contends that service was • ineffectual because respondent did not comply with Minn. R. Civ. P. 4.05, which requires an acknowledgment of service by mail. We reverse.
FACTS
On May 7, 2002, respondent George Roehrdanz brought a conciliation court action against appellant…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Leek v. American Express Property CasualtyCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 1999
- Coons v. St. Paul CompaniesCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 1992
- Turek v. A.S.P. of Moorhead, Inc.Court of Appeals of Minnesota · 2000
- Lewis v. Contracting Northwest, Inc.Court of Appeals of Minnesota · 1987
- Wilkins v. City of GlencoeCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 1992
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- Roehrdanz v. BrillSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2004
- In Re Interim Procedure for Removal/Appeal of Conciliation Court Proceedings to District CourtSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2003
- Roehrdanz v. BrillCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 2003