Legal Opinion

Grunke v. Kloskin

Court of Appeals of Minnesota

Decided September 25, 1984No. C1-84-503PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

HUSPENI, Presiding Judge.

This is an appeal from the trial court’s order vacating a default judgment in favor of appellant. Appellant claims the trial court erred because respondent failed to show that he had (1) a reasonable defense on the merits, (2) a reasonable excuse for his failure or neglect to answer, and (3) that appellant would not be substantially prejudiced by vacating the default judgment. We reverse.

FACTS

Harlan Grunke, now deceased, commenced an action against respondent Klos-kin on August 12, 1983. The complaint alleged Kloskin failed to pay an invoice dated August 10,…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Hinz v. Northland Milk & Ice Cream Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1952
  2. Sommers v. ThomasSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1958
  3. Kosloski v. JonesSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1973
  4. Vrooman Floor Covering Inc. v. DorseySupreme Court of Minnesota · 1964
  5. Coller v. Guardian Angels Roman Catholic Church of ChaskaSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1980

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

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Hill v. TischerCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 1986
  2. In Re the Estate of McCueCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 1990
  3. In Re the Estate of McCueCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 1990
  4. Margaret MacCallum and Antimo Veneziale, individually, and as assignees of James S. Poyser and Ashley E. Poyser (Bystrom) v. Spring Bay Floating Lodges, Inc., d/b/a Vermillion HouseboatsCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 2017
  5. WGSH, INC. v. BollingerCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 1986

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

Powered by the Exa API