Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Harcum v. Benson, 160 N.W. 80.

30 citing documents.

Marriage of Mingen v. Mingen 679 N.W.2d 724 Minn. 2004
Marriage of Mingen v. Mingen 679 N.W.2d 724 Minn. 2004
Nevertheless, based on Rule 104.02, it has also been the rule that “all prejudgment orders cease to be ap-pealable upon expiration of the time to appeal from the judgment.” 3 Eric J. Magnuson and David F. Herr, Minnesota Practice — Appellate Rules Annotated § 104.11 (4th ed. 2003) (citing and discussing Harcum v. Benson, 135 Minn. 23 , 160 N.W.
Marriage of Mingen v. Mingen 662 N.W.2d 926 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
Marriage of Mingen v. Mingen 662 N.W.2d 926 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
See Harcum v. Benson, 135 Minn. 23, 24 , 160 N.W.
Marriage of Hofseth v. Hofseth 456 N.W.2d 99 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
Marriage of Hofseth v. Hofseth 456 N.W.2d 99 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
See Harcum v. Benson, 135 Minn. 23 , 160 N.W.
Matter of Schueller 426 N.W.2d 241 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Matter of Schueller 426 N.W.2d 241 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Once the time to appeal from the judgment has expired, all orders issued before the judgment, including those of which written notice has not been given, cease to be appealable, Harcum v. Benson, 135 Minn. 23 , 160 N.W.
Honeymead Products Co. v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. 132 N.W.2d 741 Minn. 1965
Honeymead Products Co. v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. 132 N.W.2d 741 Minn. 1965
Harcum v. Benson, 135 Minn. 23 , determined that under what is now § 605.08, subd.
State v. Sullivan 121 N.W.2d 590 Minn. 1963
State v. Sullivan 121 N.W.2d 590 Minn. 1963
Co. 23 Minn. 4 ; Brown v. County of Cook, 82 Minn. 542 , ; Treat v. Court Minn. No. 17, U. O. F. 109 Minn. 110 , ; Harcum v. Benson, 135 Minn. 23 , ; Churchill v. Overend, 142 Minn. 102 , ; State v. Lund, 174 Minn. 194 , ; Barrett v. Smith, 183 Minn. 431 , ; General Motors Acceptance Corp. v. Jobe, 188 Minn. 598 , ; Johnson v. Union Savings Bank & Trust Co. 193 Minn. 357 , ; W
INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 857 v. Seem 116 N.W.2d 395 Minn. 1962
INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 857 v. Seem 116 N.W.2d 395 Minn. 1962
Harcum v. Benson, 135 Minn. 23 , .
State Ex Rel. Williams v. County of Hennepin 89 N.W.2d 907 Minn. 1958
State Ex Rel. Williams v. County of Hennepin 89 N.W.2d 907 Minn. 1958
2 Brown v. County of Cook, 82 Minn. 542 , ; Harcum v. Benson, 135 Minn. 23 , ; Churchill v. Overend, 142 Minn. 102 , ; State v. Lund, 174 Minn. 194 , .
State v. Nobles 47 N.W.2d 473 Minn. 1951
State v. Nobles 47 N.W.2d 473 Minn. 1951
Brown v. County of Cook, 82 Minn. 542 , ; Harcum v. Benson, 135 Minn. 23 , ; Churchill v. Overend, 142 Minn. 102 , .” We have a similar situation here, in that neither the notice of motion for new trial was made nor the hearing on the matter before the trial court had within the six-month period before the time to appeal from the judgment expired on December 24
Seagram-Distillers Corp. v. Lang 41 N.W.2d 429 Minn. 1950
Seagram-Distillers Corp. v. Lang 41 N.W.2d 429 Minn. 1950
Plaintiff relies upon numerous cases involving appeals taken after judgment from orders denying or granting a motion for a new trial, such as In re Estate of Hore, 220 Minn. 365 , 19 N. W. (2d) 778 , 160 A. L. R. 1064; Lundblad v. Erickson, 180 Minn. 185 , ; and Harcum v. Benson, 135 Minn. 23 , .
In Re Estate of Hore 19 N.W.2d 778 Minn. 1945
In Re Estate of Hore 19 N.W.2d 778 Minn. 1945
Churchill v. Overend, 142 Minn. 102 , ; Harcum v. Benson, 135 Minn. 23 , .
In Re Estate of Firle 253 N.W. 889 Minn. 1934
In Re Estate of Firle 253 N.W. 889 Minn. 1934
Co. 71 Minn. 45 , ; Baxter v. Coughlin, 80 Minn. 322 , ; State v. O’Brien, 83 Minn. 6 , ; Chadbourne v. Reed, 83 Minn. 447 , ; Bilsborrow v. Pierce, 112 Minn. 336 , ; Harcum v. Benson, 135 Minn. 23 , ; Peterson v. Township of Manchester, 162 *238 Minn. 486, ; Lundblad v. Erickson, 180 Minn. 185 , .
Lundblad v. Erickson 230 N.W. 473 Minn. 1930
Lundblad v. Erickson 230 N.W. 473 Minn. 1930
G. S. 1928 ( 2 Mason, 1927 ) § 9498; Harcum v. Benson, 135 Minn. 23 , ; 1 Dunnell, Minn. Dig.
State v. Lund 218 N.W. 887 Minn. 1928
State v. Lund 218 N.W. 887 Minn. 1928
Brown v. County of Cook, 82 Minn. 542 , ; Harcum v. Benson, 135 Minn. 23 , ; Churchill v. Overend, 142 Minn. 102 , .
Churchill v. Overend 170 N.W. 919 Minn. 1919
Churchill v. Overend 170 N.W. 919 Minn. 1919
In Harcum v. Benson, 135 Minn. 23 , , it was held that the time for appeal cannot be extended by consent or waiver.