Rice Park Properties v. Robins, Kaplan, Miller & Ciresi
Cited by
- Hope Larsen v. Erin Lee Mullen and d/b/a Running LL's Ranch Minn. Ct. App. 2026
- State of Minnesota v. Nicholas Scott Thompson Minn. Ct. App. 2026
- In the Matter of the Ronald E. Roehrs Trust Dated August 9, 1999. Minn. Ct. App. 2026
- Jacob Becker, et al., Appellants, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
- Adam C. Steele, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
- Timberland Partners, Inc., Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
- Madison Equities, Inc. v. Robert L. Crockarell 889 N.W.2d 568 Minn. 2017
- In re the Marriage of: Anita Jurevica v. Margots Kapacs Minn. Ct. App. 2016
- Mohammad Sonbol v. Green and White Taxi Cab Company, Inc. Minn. Ct. App. 2016
- In re the Matter of Boyd Jacob Phelps v. Lynnea Diana Sterling Minn. Ct. App. 2015
- Deutsche Bank National Trust Co. v. Hanson 841 N.W.2d 161 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
- Bjorklund v. Bjorklund Trucking, Inc. 753 N.W.2d 312 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
Opinion text
ORDER Based upon all the files, records and proceedings herein, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition of defendant Robins, Kaplan, Miller & Ciresi for further review of the March 3, 1995 order of the court of appeals be, and the same is, granted for the purpose of reversing the issuance of the writ of mandamus. The plaintiff Rice Park Properties sought a writ of mandamus to compel the Ramsey County District Court to vacate its stay of unlawful detainer proceedings pending the final disposition in a related and earlier filed declaratory judgment action commenced by the defendant, petitioner herein, the Robins law firm. The trial court was persuaded that, to avoid an unnecessary duplication of time, effort and expenditure of funds that would result from requiring a determination as to the right of possession to the leased premises in each of the two separate proceedings, trial of the later-filed unlawful detainer action should await resolution of the declaratory judgment action. It is our view that, while Minn.Stat. § 566.08 (1994) contemplates prompt disposition of these summary proceedings, the district court has considerable discretion in scheduling matters and in furthering what it has identified as the interests of judicial administration and economy. Under the circumstances presented, there has been no showing that the orders of the district court constitute an abuse of that discretion. The order of the court of appeals is reversed and the underlying petition for the writ of mandamus filed by Rice Park Properties is denied. BY THE COURT: /s/ Esther M. Tomljanovich Associate Justice PAGE, J., took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.