State v. Hansen
Cited by
- County of Goodhue v. Rice County 160 N.W.2d 657 Minn. 1968
- In Re Application of County of Beltrami to Determine Settlement of Joyce 119 N.W.2d 25 Minn. 1963
- Town of Burnsville v. City of Bloomington 115 N.W.2d 923 Minn. 1962
- Independent School District No. 84 v. Rittmiller 51 N.W.2d 664 Minn. 1952
- Dady v. Peterson 17 N.W.2d 322 Minn. 1945
- In Re Settlement of Peniondtz 16 N.W.2d 902 Minn. 1944
- City of Minneapolis v. County of St. Louis 16 N.W.2d 902 Minn. 1944
- County Welfare Board v. State Board of Control 283 N.W. 742 Minn. 1939
- In Re Application of Seidel for Old Age Assistance 283 N.W. 742 Minn. 1939
- In Re Settlement of Venteicher 278 N.W. 581 Minn. 1938
- County of Mille Lacs v. Town of Leigh 278 N.W. 581 Minn. 1938
- City of Detroit Lakes v. Village of Litchfield 274 N.W. 236 Minn. 1937
Authorities cited
Identified automatically; this list may not be exhaustive.
- State v. Hansen 173 Minn. 158
- Pillsbury v. Foley 61 Minn. 434
- Lydecker v. St. Paul City Railway Co. 63 N.W. 1027
- State ex rel. School District No. 74 v. County of Lincoln 129 Minn. 300
- Schleiderer v. Gergen 152 N.W. 541
- Fitzgibbins v. Yennie 132 Minn. 473
- State v. Riebel 166 Minn. 497
Opinion text
Dibell, J. The defendant appeals from the order denying his. motion to dismiss because of laches the prosecution of a bastardy proceeding. In 1926 the defendant ivas adjudged in the district court of Hennepin county to be the father of an illegitimate child. On December 16, 1927, there was a reversal. State v. Hansen, 173 Minn. 158 , 217 N. W. 146 . The result was a new trial. In the early part of 1931 the county attorney indicated a definite purpose to retry the case. The defendant moved to dismiss the proceeding because of laches in prosecution. The motion was denied. He appeals *563 from the order denying it. The state moves to dismiss the appeal upon the ground that the order is not appealable. Such an order is not appealable. It does not involve the merits of the action, nor is it an order which in effect determines the action, nor does it prevent a judgment from which an appeal may be taken. The order had no greater effect than to retain the case for trial. Pillsbury v. Foley, 61 Minn. 434 , 63 N. W. 1027 ; State ex rel. School Dist. No. 74 v. Lincoln County, 129 Minn. 300 , 152 N. W. 541 ; Fitzgibbins v. Yennie, 132 Minn. 473 , 157 N. W. 114 ; State v. Riebel, 166 Minn. 497 , 207 N. W. 631 . If the defendant preserves his record and is convicted, he can assign error on appeal. If his claim of laches is such that the case should not be tried, it stands between him and a conviction. What would have been the right of appeal if the motion had been granted is not of present consequence. Appeal dismissed.