Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Schiltz v. City of Duluth, 449 N.W.2d 439.

29 citing documents.

Anna Rae Dosso and On Behalf of Minor Children, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2026
WL 75518, at *2 (Minn. App. Jan.
Tokvan Ly v. Jodi Harpstead, Minnesota Commissioner of Human Services 7 N.W.3d 560 Minn. 2024
Tokvan Ly v. Jodi Harpstead, Minnesota Commissioner of Human Services 7 N.W.3d 560 Minn. 2024
As this case undeniably demonstrates, “[h]istorically, there has been little uniformity in the manner in which an aggrieved party has sought review by an appellate court in mandamus proceedings.” (collecting cases); see also State ex rel.
Lindsay Allyn Yates Plumer v. Joseph Mark Plumer, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2024
Lindsay Allyn Yates Plumer v. Joseph Mark Plumer, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2024
d 439, 441 (Minn. 1990); (reasoning that if a case never proceeds to trial, then “a motion for a new trial is an anomaly” (quotation omitted)).
Mitchell Wilfred Suess, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
(noting that if there was no trial, a motion for a new trial is an “anomaly”).
Linde Sayen, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
d 439, 441 (Minn. 1990); see Parson v. Argue , , 431 (Minn. App. 1984) (noting that if there was no trial, a motion for a new trial is an “anomaly”).
Kjellbergs, Inc. v. State of Minnesota, by its Commissioner of Transportation Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Kjellbergs, Inc. v. State of Minnesota, by its Commissioner of Transportation Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Mandamus is a “special proceeding,” -41 (Minn. 1990), and the rules of civil procedure apply only to the extent not in conflict with the statute.
Housing & Redevelopment Authority Ex Rel. City of Fridley v. Main Street Fridley Properties, LLC 755 N.W.2d 789 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
Housing & Redevelopment Authority Ex Rel. City of Fridley v. Main Street Fridley Properties, LLC 755 N.W.2d 789 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
Ullrich v. Newburg Township Board 648 N.W.2d 743 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
Ullrich v. Newburg Township Board 648 N.W.2d 743 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
A review of the caselaw reveals that “[historically, there has been little uniformity in the manner in which an aggrieved party has sought review by an appellate court in mandamus proceedings.”
In Re Estate of Rock 612 N.W.2d 891 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
In Re Estate of Rock 612 N.W.2d 891 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
The reason for the new-trial-motion requirement is “to provide the trial court with the opportunity to correct errors made during the course of the proceedings.”
Madson v. Minnesota Mining & Manufacturing Co. 612 N.W.2d 168 Minn. 2000
Madson v. Minnesota Mining & Manufacturing Co. 612 N.W.2d 168 Minn. 2000
( (discussing which new trial motions are authorized in special proceedings); (holding that a new trial motion in order for protection proceedings is not authorized, and order denying such a motion is not appealable)) (emphasis added).
Steeves v. Campbell 508 N.W.2d 817 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
Steeves v. Campbell 508 N.W.2d 817 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
(appeal authorized from order denying a new trial in commitment proceedings where statute indicates appeal is taken “as in other civil cases”); (order denying new trial in mandamus action appealable where statute indicates matter is to be tried and appealed as in other civil cases).
State Ex Rel. Humphrey v. Baillon Co. 503 N.W.2d 799 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
State Ex Rel. Humphrey v. Baillon Co. 503 N.W.2d 799 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
-41 (Minn.1990), the supreme court *803 considered whether a motion for a new trial is authorized and appealable in a mandamus action as in a civil action.
Pahlen v. Commissioner of Public Safety 482 N.W.2d 493 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
Pahlen v. Commissioner of Public Safety 482 N.W.2d 493 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
Later, in Schü the supreme court allowed an appeal from a new trial motion in a mandamus action, which is also a special proceeding, reasoning: [Sjince the legislature has indicated its intention that these matters are to proceed as other civil cases, a motion for a new trial in mandamus proceedings is authorized and ap
Marriage of Huso v. Huso 465 N.W.2d 719 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
Marriage of Huso v. Huso 465 N.W.2d 719 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
(appeal authorized from order denying a new trial in commitment proceedings where statute indicates appeal is taken “as in other civil cases”); (order denying new trial in mandamus action ap-pealable where statute indicates matter is to be tried and appealed as in other civil cases).
Matter of Gonzalez 456 N.W.2d 724 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
Matter of Gonzalez 456 N.W.2d 724 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
Marriage of Hofseth v. Hofseth 456 N.W.2d 99 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
Marriage of Hofseth v. Hofseth 456 N.W.2d 99 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
(mandamus); (modification proceedings); rev’d on other grounds, (commitment); (unlawful detainer); Knutson v. Commissio

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by