Cited by

efore the court); Reichel, d at 611 (vacating the court of appeals’ decision because the district court had not reached the claims); (vacating the court of appeals’ decision because the order was nonappealable and there was no good cause to suspend the rules of appellate procedure); McCullough & Sons, (vacating the court of appeals’ decision because the order at issue was nonappealable); (per curiam) (vacating the court of appeals’ decision because the matter was moot before that court).

see McCullough & Sons, d 580, 590 (Minn. 2016) (“[S]ervice of process is the means by which a court obtains personal jurisdiction over a defendant .

Whether a court has subject matter jurisdiction “generally depends on the scope of the constitutional and statutory grant of authority to the court.” McCullough & Sons

See McCullough & Sons, –86 (Minn. 2016).

“[S]ervice of process is the means by which a court obtains personal jurisdiction over a defendant.” McCullough and Sons, d 580, 590 (Minn. 2016).

“Whether a court has subject-matter jurisdiction to hear and determine a particular class of actions and the particular questions presented generally depends on the scope of 13 the constitutional and statutory grant of authority to the court.” McCullough & Sons, (quotation omitted).

Whether a court has subject-matter jurisdiction “generally depends on the scope of the constitutional and statutory grant of authority to the court.” McCullough & Sons

“Whether a court has subject-matter jurisdiction ‘to hear and determine a particular class of actions and the particular questions’ presented generally depends on the scope of the constitutional and statutory grant of authority to the court.” McCullough & Sons, (quoting Robinette v. Price, 10 S.B.G.

The collateral-order doctrine “recognizes a small class of decisions that are immediately appealable prior to the entry of final judgment.” McCullough & Sons

See McCullough & Sons, & n.3 (Minn. 2016) (distinguishing between subject-matter and personal jurisdiction and re cognizing that it has sometimes conflated the two).

Whether a court has subject- matter jurisdiction “depends on the scope of the constitutional and statutory grant of authority to the court.” McCullough & Sons, d 580, 585 (Minn. 2016) (quotation omitted).

McCullough & Sons, see also Minn. Const. art. VI, § 3 (granting district court original jurisdiction in civil and criminal cases); Minn. Stat. § 484.01 (2020) (providing that district courts have jurisdiction in “all civil actions within their respective districts.”).

Whether a court has subject-matter jurisdiction “depends on the scope of the constitutional and statutory grant of authority to the court.” McCullough & Sons

Wick v. Wick , see McCullough & Sons, Inc. v. City of Vadnais Heights , (“[S]ervice of process is the means by which a court obtains personal jurisdiction over a defendant.

Heights, (“ Courts can question subject -matter jurisdiction at any time, even if the parties to a case have not done so.”).

“Jurisdiction refers to a court’s po wer to hear and decide disputes.” McCullough & Sons, Inc. v. City of Vadnais Heights , (quotation omitted).

“Jurisdiction refers to a court’s power to hear and decide disputes.” McCullough & Sons, Inc. v. City of Vadnais Heights , (quotation omitted).

McCullough & Sons, Inc. v. City of Vadnais Heights , d 580, 590 (Minn. 2016) (noting that unlike a defect in a court’s subject-matter jurisdiction, parties can waive defects in personal jurisdiction); see Minn. R. Civ.

“Jurisdiction refers to a court’s power to hear and decide disputes.” McCullough & Sons, Inc. v. City of Vadnais Heights , d 580, 584–85 (Minn. 2016) (quotation omitted).

.” McCullough & Sons, d 580, 590 (Minn. 2016) (McCullough I).

“Whether a court has subject- matter jurisdiction to hear and determine a particular class of actions and the particular questions presented generally depends on the scope of the constitutional and statutory grant of authority to the court.” McCullough & Sons, d 580, 585 (Minn. 2016) (quotation omitted).

3 See McCullough & Sons, Inc. v. City of Vadnais Heights , , 585 (Minn. 2016) (citing Seehus v. Bor-Son Constr., Inc. , , 147 (Minn. 2010) ) (noting that subject-matter jurisdiction may not be waived by the parties).

And, by pleading guilty, Johnson did not forfeit his righ t to make this jurisdictional argument.3 See McCullough & Sons, Inc. v. City of Vadnais Heights , (citing Seehus v. Bor -Son Constr., Inc. , ) (noting that subject-matter jurisdiction may not be waived by the parties).

“Jurisdiction refers to a court’s power to hear and decide disputes.” McCullough & Sons, Inc. v. City of Vadnais Heights , -85 (Minn. 2016) (quotation omitted) (distinguishing subject-matter jurisdiction from claim- processing rules).

“[S]ervice of process is the means by which a court obtains personal jurisdiction over a defendant.” McCullough & Sons

“Jurisdiction refers to a court’s power to hear and decide disputes.” McCullough & Sons, –85 (Minn. 2016) (quotation omitted) (correcting this court’s understanding of subject matter jurisdiction as contrasted with claim-processing rules).

However, a party “may not consent to a court acting when it has no subject -matter jurisdiction.” see McCullough & Sons, (noting that unlike a defect in the court’s subject-matter jurisdiction, parties can waive defects in personal jurisdiction).

McCullough & Sons, ( McCullough II ).

As recognized by the district court, “service of process is the means by which a court obtains personal jurisdiction over a defendant,” McCullough & Sons, and default judgment may not be entered against a defendant over whom the court has no personal jurisdiction, see Hengel v. Hyatt, 312 Minn. 317, 318 , (“If the judgment is void for lack of jurisdiction, it must be set aside ....

Cf. McCullough & Sons, -85 (Minn. 2016) (stating that subject-matter jurisdiction refers to the court’s power "to hear and determine a particular class of actions and the particular questions presented”) (quotation omitted).

See McCullough & Sons, (explaining that we can question jurisdiction at any time, including "whether the court of appeals had jurisdiction to decide the appeal”).

the court of appeals [has] the authority to accept jurisdiction” if, in the interests of justice, it is deemed necessary); see also McCullough & Sons, (explaining that court rules can define appellate jurisdiction).