From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Graupmann v. Rental Equip. Sales Co.

Minnesota Court of Appeals
Jul 12, 1988
425 N.W.2d 861 (Minn. Ct. App. 1988)

Summary

noting that order granting summary judgment is not appealable, and the proper appeal is from the resulting judgment

Summary of this case from State by Smart Growth Minneapolis v. City of Minneapolis

Opinion

No. C9-88-1195.

July 12, 1988.

Appeal from the District Court, Hennepin County, LaJune Thomas Lange, J.

John M. Steele, Minneapolis, for appellants.

Don C. Day, Peahl Day, Minneapolis, for respondents.

Considered at Special Term and decided by WOZNIAK, C.J., and HUSPENI and SHORT, JJ., without oral argument.


SPECIAL TERM OPINION


FACTS

Appellants commenced this action against respondents, who then moved for summary judgment based on res judicata. The trial court granted that motion by order dated April 27, 1988, completely dismissing appellants' action. Appellants filed this appeal on June 6 seeking review of the April 27 order for summary judgment. This court questioned jurisdiction and directed the parties to file memoranda on the appealability of the order.

DECISION

An order granting summary judgment is nonappealable. Credit Union of Minneapolis Board of Realtors v. Ralston, 296 Minn. 491, 492, 206 N.W.2d 657, 658 (1973); Minn.R.Civ.App.P. 103.03. The April 27 order is not appealable and the proper appeal is from a judgment entered pursuant to that order. See Minn.R.Civ.App.P. 103.03(a).

Counsel claims the district court administrator indicated it does not generally enter judgment where an order dismisses an action. (In fact, no judgment has yet been entered pursuant to the April 27 order.) The district court administrator is required to enter "judgment upon the verdict of a jury, or upon an order of the court for the recovery of money only or for costs or that all relief be denied * * *." Minn.R.Civ.P. 58.01 (emphasis added). Although the April 27 order failed to specifically direct entry of judgment, the district court administrator is required by Rule 58.01 to enter judgment. The district court administrator must enter judgment on all orders of dismissal, except dismissals for lack of jurisdiction. Id.; see Bulau v. Bulau, 208 Minn. 529, 530, 294 N.W. 845, 846-47 (1940).

Appeal dismissed.


Summaries of

Graupmann v. Rental Equip. Sales Co.

Minnesota Court of Appeals
Jul 12, 1988
425 N.W.2d 861 (Minn. Ct. App. 1988)

noting that order granting summary judgment is not appealable, and the proper appeal is from the resulting judgment

Summary of this case from State by Smart Growth Minneapolis v. City of Minneapolis
Case details for

Graupmann v. Rental Equip. Sales Co.

Case Details

Full title:Richard W. GRAUPMANN, et al., Appellants, v. RENTAL EQUIPMENT AND SALES…

Court:Minnesota Court of Appeals

Date published: Jul 12, 1988

Citations

425 N.W.2d 861 (Minn. Ct. App. 1988)

Citing Cases

Swenson v. City of Fifty Lakes

DECISION An order for judgment is not appealable. Minn.R.Civ.App.P. 103.03; Graupmann v. Rental Equipment …

State by Smart Growth Minneapolis v. City of Minneapolis

Although no judgment has been entered by the district court, we review the grant of summary judgment as a…