Riemer v. Zahn

How courts have described this case

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

• stating that “vacating the default judgment should not significantly prejudice [nonmovants]” because “[t]he record does not indicate that the evidence has been substantially affected or that witnesses now are unavailable”
• stating that caselaw “favors a balancing of all the factors” and that “[b]alancing is particularly favored in cases such as this where the weakest of the four factors is the party’s excuse for failing to answer”
• stating that “[t]he only clear result [of vacating particular default judgment] is the delay and added expense, factors which do not equate substantial prejudice standing alone” (citing Finden, 268 Minn. at 272, 128 N.W.2d at 751)
• finding no substantial prejudice where the outcome had not- been substantially affected and witnesses were not unavailable
• “The record does not indicate that the evidence has been substantially affected or that witnesses now are unavailable.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).