Ferdinand Leo Gams, Jr. v. Steven Ronald Houghton
Court of Appeals of Minnesota
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
RODENBERG, Judge.
Appellant’s personal-injury action was dismissed pursuant to Minn. R. Civ. P. 5.04(a) because it was filed in district court more than one year after the action was commenced by service. The district court denied appellant’s request for relief under Minn. R. Civ. P. 60.02, concluding that such relief from a judgment of dismissal under rule 5.04(a) is not available and, alternatively, that appellant, failed to “prove all four elements” for rule-60.02 relief even if such relief were to be considered available. Because we conclude that rule 60.02 applies to judgments…
2Cases cited18 opinions
- Thiele v. StichSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1988
- Laura L. Walsh v. U.S. Bank, N.A.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 2014
- Finden v. KlaasSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1964
- Michele A. Robb, Individually and as a Personal Representative of the Estate of Paul D. Robb v. Norfolk & Western Railway CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1997
- Josephine Ann Sleek v. J. C. Penney Company, IncCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1961
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- Ferdinand Leo Gams, Jr., Respondent/Cross-Appellant v. Steven Ronald Houghton, Appellant/Cross-Respondent.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 2016
- Jerry Wayne Cole v. Alexander Allen WutzkeCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 2015
- Demitrius Verros v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co.Court of Appeals of Minnesota · 2025
- Shannon Fogarty v. Ciao BellaCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 2016