Legal Opinion

Smigla v. Schnell

Court of Appeals of Minnesota

Decided April 30, 1996No. C3-95-2393Published

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

DAVIES, Judge.

Respondents, dissatisfied with a non-binding arbitration award, filed a request for trial with the district court by facsimile transmission. The facsimile transmission occurred after the administrator’s office closed, but before midnight on the last permissible day for filing the request. The district court allowed the case to go to trial. We affirm the judgment entered after trial because the district court correctly determined that respondents’ request for trial was timely filed.

FACTS

Appellant Gail Smigla was operating an automobile that collided with a car driven by…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Tuma v. Commissioner of Economic SecuritySupreme Court of Minnesota · 1986
  2. State v. JohnsonSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1994
  3. Homart Development Co. v. County of HennepinSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1995
  4. Career Resources, Inc. v. Pearson Candy Co.Court of Appeals of Minnesota · 1989
  5. In Re the Welfare of J.D.O.Court of Appeals of Minnesota · 1993

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

Powered by the Exa API