Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Marzitelli v. City of Little Canada, 582 N.W.2d 904.

61 citing documents.

State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
City of Waconia, Minn. 2021
( refusing to deviate from the plain language of Rule 103.03 by designating an appealable order as nonappealable simply because the district court directed entry of judgment on that order).4 The City argues that we are without jurisdiction to hear this appeal because the “sole act” that commenc
Gabrielle Huson, et al., Appellants, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
In the Marriage of: Robert Peter Crowley v. Bridget Marie Meyer Minn. Ct. App. 2016
In the Marriage of: Robert Peter Crowley v. Bridget Marie Meyer Minn. Ct. App. 2016
McCullough and Sons, Inc. v. City of Vadnais Heights, A14-1992 883 N.W.2d 580 Minn. 2016
McCullough and Sons, Inc. v. City of Vadnais Heights, A14-1992 883 N.W.2d 580 Minn. 2016
Craig Matthew Hohenwald v. State of Minnesota 875 N.W.2d 843 Minn. 2016
Craig Matthew Hohenwald v. State of Minnesota 875 N.W.2d 843 Minn. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Adam Dale Muellner Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Adam Dale Muellner Minn. Ct. App. 2015
to support his contention that the district court’s jurisdiction concerning its own orders ends upon expiration of the appeal period, and that the district court’s orders are then final.
Guava LLC, Judgment Debtors, Paul Hansmeier v. Spencer Merkel, Qwest Communications Corporation, Judgment Creditors, John Doe 173.19.225.244 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Guava LLC, Judgment Debtors, Paul Hansmeier v. Spencer Merkel, Qwest Communications Corporation, Judgment Creditors, John Doe 173.19.225.244 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
(“If the time for appeal from an order expires without appeal having been taken, then the order becomes final and the district court’s jurisdiction to amend the order is terminated.”); City of Waite Park v. Minn. Office of Admin.
North Star International Trucks, Inc. v. Navistar, Inc. 837 N.W.2d 320 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
North Star International Trucks, Inc. v. Navistar, Inc. 837 N.W.2d 320 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
“If the time for appeal from an order expires without appeal having been taken, then the order becomes final and the district court’s jurisdiction to amend the order is terminated.” (reiterating that, after the passing of the period in which to appeal, an order becomes final, a motion to amend is untimely, and the district court’s jurisdiction to amend terminates).
In re Skyline Materials, Ltd. 819 N.W.2d 183 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
In re Skyline Materials, Ltd. 819 N.W.2d 183 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
-07 (Minn.1998) (observing that failure to perfect appeal to district court within prescribed statutory period deprives district court of subject-matter jurisdiction).
Little v. Arrowhead Regional Corrections 773 N.W.2d 344 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
Little v. Arrowhead Regional Corrections 773 N.W.2d 344 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
(advocating stay on appeal as means of enabling original decision-maker to decide on motion); see also Minn. R. Civ.App.
In Re the Welfare of M.J.M. 766 N.W.2d 360 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
In Re the Welfare of M.J.M. 766 N.W.2d 360 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
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
*792 -07 (Minn.1998) (holding that district court’s jurisdiction to determine posttrial motion does not extend beyond running of time for appeal).
In Re the Class a License of North Metro Harness, Inc. 711 N.W.2d 129 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
In Re the Class a License of North Metro Harness, Inc. 711 N.W.2d 129 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
“[J]urisdiction end[s] once the time to appeal from the order expire[s] without appeal having been taken.”
Dead Lake Ass'n, Inc. v. Otter Tail County 695 N.W.2d 129 Minn. 2005
Dead Lake Ass'n, Inc. v. Otter Tail County 695 N.W.2d 129 Minn. 2005
(“[I]t is blackletter law that subject matter jurisdiction may not be waived.”); 1 David F. Herr & Roger S. Haydock, Minnesota Practice — Civil Rules Ann. § 12.17 (4th ed. 2002) (“Since subject matter jurisdiction is a fundamental question going to the very right of the court to adjudicate the dis
Illinois Farmers Insurance Co. v. Glass Service Co. 683 N.W.2d 792 Minn. 2004
Illinois Farmers Insurance Co. v. Glass Service Co. 683 N.W.2d 792 Minn. 2004
(“[I]t is blackletter law that subject matter jurisdiction may not be waived.”); Duininck Bros. & Gilchrist v. Brandondale Chaska Corp., 311 Minn. 291, 293
Marriage of Mingen v. Mingen 679 N.W.2d 724 Minn. 2004
Marriage of Mingen v. Mingen 679 N.W.2d 724 Minn. 2004
In Marzitelli v. City of Little Canada, we explained that “[i]f the time for appeal from an order expires without appeal having been taken, then the order becomes final and the district court’s jurisdiction to amend the order is terminated.”
Illinois Farmers Insurance Co. v. Glass Service Co. 669 N.W.2d 420 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
Illinois Farmers Insurance Co. v. Glass Service Co. 669 N.W.2d 420 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
Johns v. Harborage I, Ltd. 664 N.W.2d 291 Minn. 2003
Johns v. Harborage I, Ltd. 664 N.W.2d 291 Minn. 2003
Marriage of Mingen v. Mingen 662 N.W.2d 926 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
Marriage of Mingen v. Mingen 662 N.W.2d 926 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
Odenthal v. Minnesota Conference of Seventh-Day Adventists 657 N.W.2d 569 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
Odenthal v. Minnesota Conference of Seventh-Day Adventists 657 N.W.2d 569 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
Marriage of Ludwigson v. Ludwigson 642 N.W.2d 441 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
Marriage of Ludwigson v. Ludwigson 642 N.W.2d 441 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
Marriage of Huntsman v. Huntsman 633 N.W.2d 852 Minn. 2001
Marriage of Huntsman v. Huntsman 633 N.W.2d 852 Minn. 2001
As we discussed in Madson , the amendments to rule 104.01
Peoples State Bank Truman v. Triplett 633 N.W.2d 533 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
Peoples State Bank Truman v. Triplett 633 N.W.2d 533 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
Jensen v. Walsh 623 N.W.2d 247 Minn. 2001
Jensen v. Walsh 623 N.W.2d 247 Minn. 2001
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
Kellar v. Von Holtum 605 N.W.2d 696 Minn. 2000

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by