Hammer v. Soderberg

Supreme Court of Minnesota

Hammer v. Soderberg

358 N.W.2d 53, 1984 Minn. LEXIS 1512

CourtSupreme Court of Minnesota

DecidedNovember 16, 1984

DocketC6-82-1674, C7-83-995

StatusPublished

Cited by8 cases

This text of 358 N.W.2d 53 (Hammer v. Soderberg) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Minnesota primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Hammer v. Soderberg, 358 N.W.2d 53, 1984 Minn. LEXIS 1512 (Mich. 1984).

Pincite

Opinion

COYNE, Justice.

Daniel Hammer was injured when his automobile, which was being driven by his wife, collided with a vehicle owned by Thomas Soderberg. Hammer unsuccessfully sought to recover his property damage in conciliation court. He later brought an action in district court to recover damages on account of his personal injuries. In response to a motion by Soderberg for summary judgment based on the doctrine of res judicata, Hammer obtained a vacation of the conciliation court judgment. So-derberg appeals from the order vacating the judgment.

Under the principles adopted in Mattsen v. Packman, 358 N.W.2d 48, released today, and under the facts of this case, we conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in vacating the judgment under Rule 60.02(6) of the Minnesota Rules of Civil Procedure.

Affirmed.

TODD, J., concurs in the result.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

COYNE, Justice.

Daniel Hammer was injured when his automobile, which was being driven by his wife, collided with a vehicle owned by Thomas Soderberg. Hammer unsuccessfully sought to recover his property damage in conciliation court. He later brought an action in district court to recover damages on account of his personal injuries. In response to a motion by Soderberg for summary judgment based on the doctrine of res judicata, Hammer obtained a vacation of the conciliation court judgment. So-derberg appeals from the order vacating the judgment.

Under the principles adopted in Mattsen v. Packman, 358 N.W.2d 48, released today, and under the facts of this case, we conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in vacating the judgment under Rule 60.02(6) of the Minnesota Rules of Civil Procedure.

Affirmed.

TODD, J., concurs in the result.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

358 N.W.2d 53, 1984 Minn. LEXIS 1512, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hammer-v-soderberg-minn-1984.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack