Legal Opinion

McClellan v. Goldberg

Court of Appeals of Minnesota

Decided September 2, 1997No. C6-97-433Published

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

HUSPENI, Judge.

The district court denied appellants’ motion to vacate a conciliation court judgment and to remove the case to district court. Because we hold that appellants’ untimeliness in filing the motion did not deprive the district court of jurisdiction, we reverse and remand for a determination of whether the untimeliness was excusable neglect.

FACTS

Following a hearing, the conciliation court awarded judgment against appellants H.L. Goldberg, et al. The notice of judgment, mailed on November 18, 1996, informed the parties that the last date for filing a demand for removal of the…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Thiele v. StichSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1988
  2. Hubred v. Control Data Corp.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1989
  3. Finden v. KlaasSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1964
  4. Mattsen v. PackmanSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1984
  5. Duenow v. LindemanSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1947

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

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

Powered by the Exa API