Legal Opinion · Dissent

Rieman v. Joubert

Court of Appeals of Minnesota

Decided February 12, 1985No. C3-84-1412Published

1DissentCrippen, Judge

I respectfully dissent.

Unless compelled by rules of procedure or established appellate decisions, we should not disregard appellant’s right of review.

The applicable rule (Minn.R.Civ.P. 59.03) is simply stated and widely respected in practice. To establish without doubt the time for a new trial motion, the rule utilizes a special notice document. As the majority opinion indicates, the same device is used to identify the time for appeal from an order. Minn.R.Civ.App.P. 104.01. Actual knowledge does not substitute for notice; this is so under the Rules of Civil Procedure, and it was the law…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. State Ex Rel. Driscoll v. EnersenSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1931
  2. Differt v. RendahlSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1981
  3. Westling v. City of St. Louis ParkSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1968
  4. Doyle v. SwansonSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1939
  5. State v. Independent School District No. 31Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1962

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API