Legal Opinion · Dissent

Roehrdanz v. Brill

Court of Appeals of Minnesota

Decided October 29, 2003No. CX-03-137Published

1DissentLansing, Judge

The dispositive question in this case is how to serve an appeal from a conciliation court decision. George Roehrdanz served Toby Brill by first class mail with a demand for removal to district court. The majority concludes that the notice of removal or appeal is ineffective because Roehrdanz was required to serve Brill under Rule 4.05 of the Minnesota Rules of Civil Procedure. I respectfully disagree. The conciliation court rules allow the notice for removal to be served by first class mail. Minn. R. Gen. Pract. 521(b)(1). Roehrdanz could have effectively served Brill under the rules of civil…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Wilkins v. City of GlencoeCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 1992
  2. Reichel v. HefnerCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 1991

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

Powered by the Exa API