Breza v. Schmitz
Can I rely on this case?
Citation treatment has not been reviewed for this case. The notes below come from the citation graph and the Minnesota Revisor's amendment records, not from a review of how later courts treated this decision.
(as of 9/30/2026)
Last cited by a Minnesota appellate court in 2024, among the opinions in this site’s citation index.
Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
See our Terms of Use before relying on these notes. Report an error
Cases that cite this one
10 later published cases cite this decision.
- Frontier Insurance Co. v. Frontline Processing Corp. (Minn. Ct. App. 2010)
- Ryan v. Ballentine VFW Post No. 246 (Minn. Ct. App. 1987)
- State Ex Rel. Humphrey v. Ri-Mel, Inc. (Minn. Ct. App. 1987)
- Kallys Albert, Sr. v. Chon Xiong, Jared J. Timmer (Progressive Claims Generalist), ... (Minn. Ct. App. 2024)
- Curtis Trude, (A15-0378), (A15-1863, A15-1864), Glenwood State Bank, counterclaimant, and third party v. Peterson Earth Movers, Inc., Third Party (A15-0378, A15-1863), (A15-1864), Golden West, LLC, third party (A15-1863), (A15-0378, A15-1864), Charles D. Peterson, Third Party (A15-1864), and Curtis Trude v. Excel Recovery, Inc. (Minn. Ct. App. 2016)
- First American Title Insurance Company v. National Title Resources Corp., dba Northwest Title Agency, Co-Appellants, Wayne Holstad (Minn. Ct. App. 2016)
- Katie Nesbit v. Antonio Arellano, Emilio Trevino. (Minn. Ct. App. 2015)
- Marriage of Hoyland v. Kelly (Minn. Ct. App. 1985)
- Copeland v. Bragge (Minn. Ct. App. 1985)
- Higgins v. Lufi (Minn. Ct. App. 1984)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion
Considered and decided by the court without oral argument.
This appeal by plaintiff, Minnie Breza, seeks reversal of a second involuntary dismissal of her personal injury action commenced September 30, 1971, arising out of an automobile accident which occurred October 10, 1965. In her first appeal, Breza v. Schmitz, 305 Minn. 537, 233 N. W. 2d 559 (1975), we held that inasmuch as the case had not been set for trial on a day certain, involuntary dismissal of her action for failure to prosecute under Rule 41.02(1), Rules of Civil Procedure, was improper.
Shortly after remand, a day certain trial date was set for October 21,1975. At a pretrial conference, at which plaintiff appeared pro se, motions by plaintiff and defendants, Roger Schmitz and Marvin Schmitz, were heard and orally decided. An order responsive to the motions was issued October 8. Included was an order compelling plaintiff to answer defendants’ interrogatories and to submit to oral deposition on October 21.
Upon plaintiff’s failure to obey the discovery orders, her action, upon defendants’ motion, was dismissed with prejudice pursuant to Rule 37.02(2) (c), Rules of Civil Procedure.
*237 Despite the painstaking efforts of the trial court and defendants’ counsel to afford plaintiff all possible assistance and courtesies, a review of the voluminous record unmistakably supports the trial court’s findings that “[p]laintiff has wilfully and without justification or excuse” refused to comply with discovery orders and “deliberately and in bad faith, with the intent to delay the trial,” continued to refuse to cooperate with the court and defendants’ counsel to bring the case to a prompt and expeditious conclusion as directed by this court and thereby “forfeited her right to a trial of her case on the merits.”
We have no choice but to affirm the trial court’s dismissal. See, Kielsa v. St. John’s Lutheran Hospital Assn. 287 Minn. 187, 177 N. W. 2d 420 (1970).
Affirmed.
Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.