43209 Precedential Dismissed Processed

Weinzierl v. Lien

Minnesota Supreme Court · Filed July 6, 1973 · 209 N.W.2d 424

Cited by

In re the Estate of: Joseph Rocco Figliuzzi, Minn. 2022
McCullough and Sons, Inc. v. City of Vadnais Heights, A14-1992 883 N.W.2d 580 Minn. 2016
In Re GlaxoSmithKline Plc 699 N.W.2d 749 Minn. 2005
Gordon v. Microsoft Corp. 645 N.W.2d 393 Minn. 2002
In Re Estate of Janecek 610 N.W.2d 638 Minn. 2000
In Re Paternity of BJH 573 N.W.2d 99 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
A.J.S. v. M.T.H. 573 N.W.2d 99 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
Zizak v. Despatch Industries, Inc. 427 N.W.2d 755 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Emme v. C.O.M.B., Inc. 418 N.W.2d 176 Minn. 1988
Parson v. Argue 344 N.W.2d 431 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
In Re the Welfare of K. P. H. 289 N.W.2d 722 Minn. 1980

Authorities cited

Identified automatically; this list may not be exhaustive.

Johnson v. Giese 230 Minn. 185
Shema v. Thorpe Bros. 238 Minn. 470
Kempf v. Kempf 287 Minn. 529

Opinion text

Per Curiam. Appeal from an order of the district court reinstating the court’s findings of fact, conclusions of law, and order for judgment in an action involving a boundary line dispute. Since the appeal is fatally defective, we dismiss. Rule 103, Rules of Civil Appellate Procedure, sets out those orders from which an appeal *540 of right may be taken. In construing this rule and its antecedent, Minn. St. 605.09, this court has consistently held that an order is not appeal-able unless in effect it finally determines the action or finally determines some positive legal right of the appellant relating to the action. Johnson v. Giese, 230 Minn. 185 , 40 N. W. 2d 909 (1950); Shema v. Thorpe Bros. 238 Minn. 470 , 57 N. W. 2d 157 (1953); Kempf v. Kempf, 287 Minn. 529 , 177 N. W. 2d 40 (1970). We can perceive of no basis on which an order reinstating findings of fact, conclusions of law, and order for judgment can be given different effect than one denying a motion to amend such an order. It may be added that we have carefully examined the record and conclude that the exercise of discretionary review under Rule 105 is not warranted since the record amply sustains the trial court’s determination. Appeal dismissed. Mr. Justice Yetka and Mr. Justice Scott, not having been members of this court at the time of the argument and submission, took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.