Skip to main content

Carter v. Anderson

Citations

  • 554 N.W.2d 110
  • 1996 Minn. App. LEXIS 1155
  • 1996 WL 571341

How courts have described this case

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

  • concluding that “Rule 60.02 is limited to the specific situations provided for in the rule itself and does not allow for general correction of judicial error”
  • explaining that Rule 60.02 provides relief from judgments under “very specific” and “narrowly defined” circumstances
  • applying Finden factors on review of district court’s vacation of summary judgment
  • “Rule 60.02 is limited to the specific situations provided for in the rule itself and does not allow for general correction of judicial error.”
  • “[I]t is doubtful that [r]ule 60.02 can be used as a substitute for appeal based on a perceived judicial error.”
  • “[B]ecause the district court did not make any Rule 60.02 analysis or apply the Finden test, we must do so.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Crippen, Parker, Short

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

9 cases in this archive cite this case.

Cites

11 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

Other cases with this name

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.