O'NEIL v. Corrick

239 N.W.2d 230, 307 Minn. 497, 1976 Minn. LEXIS 1469
Supreme Court of Minnesota·Decided February 6, 1976·No. 45718·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam.

This is an appeal by plaintiff, acting as his own attorney, from judgment entered against him in an action against the attorneys who represented his deceased former wife in her divorce suit against him, a suit which ended in settlement. We have carefully examined the record and conclude that the trial court properly dismissed plaintiff’s action and granted defendants summary judgment. Plaintiff failed to comply with an order that he either provide full and complete answers to written interrogatories within 30 days or have his action dismissed, and there *498 fore dismissal or default judgment was justified under Rule 37.02 (2) (c), Rules of Civil Procedure.

Affirmed.

Mr. Justice Kelly took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.

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

O'NEIL v. Corrick, 239 N.W.2d 230, 307 Minn. 497, 1976 Minn. LEXIS 1469 (Mich. 1976).

239 N.W.2d 230 (O'NEIL v. Corrick) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

State Ex Rel. Humphrey v. Ri-Mel, Inc.
417 N.W.2d 102 (Court of Appeals of Minnesota, 1987)
Higgins v. Lufi
353 N.W.2d 150 (Court of Appeals of Minnesota, 1984)
O'NEIL v. Kelly
239 N.W.2d 231 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1976)