Bjelland v. Bjelland

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• concluding that because the “information was, or should have been, available to counsel prior to the hearing on the motion and cannot truly be considered „newly discovered‟”
• holding that a party fails to meet the standard to show facts supporting a failure to avoid mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or neglect when there is evidence that they could have discovered the error in -7- question
• stating that “[a] frivolous appeal is one that is devoid of merit or has no reasonable chance of success”
• stating “[a] frivolous appeal is one that is devoid of merit or has no reasonable chance of success”
• affirming the denial of Rule 60.02 relief even when a medical professional testified
• “a mistake of law is not a ground for relief under Rule 60.02”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).