Poured Concrete Foundations Inc. v. Andron, Inc.
Court of Appeals of Minnesota
1DissentHarten, Judge
I agree that the trial court order should be reversed to allow completion of the trial on the issue of priority. Because I believe the trial court correctly allowed the nonappealing lien claimants to benefit from the appeal, however, I respectfully dissent on that issue.
I have no quarrel with this court’s recognition of the general rule that a party who fails to appeal is bound by the lower court’s decision. Loram Maintenance of Way, Inc. v. Consolidated Rail Corp., 354 N.W.2d 111, 113 (Minn.App.1984). Applied to the facts of this case, however, this rule is discordant.
In a prior appeal in…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Loram Maintenance of Way, Inc. v. Consolidated Rail Corp.Court of Appeals of Minnesota · 1984
- Peterson v. WillyardSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1952