C2-88-1121, C3-88-1127 Precedential Granted Processed

Olmscheid v. Paterson

Minnesota Court of Appeals · Filed June 28, 1988 · 425 N.W.2d 312

Cited by

Kie Vang, and v. Joshua Paul Forsman, Ely Chamber of Commerce, City of Ely, … 883 N.W.2d 288 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Doering v. Doering 629 N.W.2d 124 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
Richardson v. Ludwig 495 N.W.2d 869 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
State v. Ciurleo 471 N.W.2d 119 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
Zimprich v. Stratford Homes, Inc. 453 N.W.2d 557 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
Krmpotich v. City of Duluth 449 N.W.2d 507 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
State Ex Rel. Humphrey v. Certified Services, Inc. 432 N.W.2d 494 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
First National Bank of Windom v. Rosenkranz 430 N.W.2d 267 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Itasca County Social Services v. Milatovich 427 N.W.2d 727 Minn. Ct. App. 1988

Opinion text

SPECIAL TERM OPINION WOZNIAK, Chief Judge. FACTS Appellant Olmscheid sued respondent Paterson and respondent Minneapolis North-field and Southern Railway. Respondent railroad commenced a third-party action against respondent City of Edina. Appellant Pennsylvania General Insurance Co. moved to intervene and the motion was granted. By judgment dated February 26, 1988 the trial court dismissed the claims *313 against respondent railroad and the City of Edina. The February 26 judgment did not address the claim of appellant Olmscheid against respondent Paterson. Appellant Pennsylvania General Insurance Co. filed a notice of appeal on May 24, 1988 seeking review of the February 26 judgment. The next day appellant Olm-scheid filed a notice of appeal seeking review of the same February 26 judgment. This court questioned jurisdiction in both appeals and directed the parties to file memoranda on the appealability of the February 26 judgment. DECISION A judgment which does not adjudicate all the claims of all the parties and which is not entered pursuant to an order which states that there is no just reason for delay and directs entry of final judgment is not appealable. See Minn.R.Civ. App.P. 104.01 and Minn.R.Civ.P. 54.02. It appears the only remaining claim not addressed by the February 26 judgment is the claim of appellant Olmscheid against respondent Paterson. Although we have not seen a copy of any stipulation, the parties acknowledge that claim has been settled. However, no party has produced a copy of an order or judgment which adjudicates or dismisses the claim pursuant to the settlement, nor did the trial court make the express determination specified under rule 104.01. For this reason the February 26 judgment is still a partial judgment and the appeals must be dismissed at this time. Appellants may seek review of the February 26 judgment after a final judgment is entered which dismisses the claim of appellant Olmscheid against respondent Paterson. See Minn.R.Civ.App.P. 104.01 Comment. Appeals dismissed.