Olmscheid v. Paterson

Court of Appeals of Minnesota

Olmscheid v. Paterson

425 N.W.2d 312, 1988 Minn. App. LEXIS 688, 1988 WL 64391

CourtCourt of Appeals of Minnesota

DecidedJune 28, 1988

DocketC2-88-1121, C3-88-1127

StatusPublished

Cited by9 cases

This text of 425 N.W.2d 312 (Olmscheid v. Paterson) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Minnesota primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Olmscheid v. Paterson, 425 N.W.2d 312, 1988 Minn. App. LEXIS 688, 1988 WL 64391 (Mich. Ct. App. 1988).

Pincite

Opinion

SPECIAL TERM OPINION

WOZNIAK, Chief Judge.

FACTS

Appellant Olmscheid sued respondent Paterson and respondent Minneapolis North-field and Southern Railway. Respondent railroad commenced a third-party action against respondent City of Edina. Appellant Pennsylvania General Insurance Co. moved to intervene and the motion was granted. By judgment dated February 26, 1988 the trial court dismissed the claims *313 against respondent railroad and the City of Edina. The February 26 judgment did not address the claim of appellant Olmscheid against respondent Paterson.

Appellant Pennsylvania General Insurance Co. filed a notice of appeal on May 24, 1988 seeking review of the February 26 judgment. The next day appellant Olm-scheid filed a notice of appeal seeking review of the same February 26 judgment. This court questioned jurisdiction in both appeals and directed the parties to file memoranda on the appealability of the February 26 judgment.

DECISION

A judgment which does not adjudicate all the claims of all the parties and which is not entered pursuant to an order which states that there is no just reason for delay and directs entry of final judgment is not appealable. See Minn.R.Civ. App.P. 104.01 and Minn.R.Civ.P. 54.02. It appears the only remaining claim not addressed by the February 26 judgment is the claim of appellant Olmscheid against respondent Paterson. Although we have not seen a copy of any stipulation, the parties acknowledge that claim has been settled. However, no party has produced a copy of an order or judgment which adjudicates or dismisses the claim pursuant to the settlement, nor did the trial court make the express determination specified under rule 104.01. For this reason the February 26 judgment is still a partial judgment and the appeals must be dismissed at this time. Appellants may seek review of the February 26 judgment after a final judgment is entered which dismisses the claim of appellant Olmscheid against respondent Paterson. See Minn.R.Civ.App.P. 104.01 Comment.

Appeals dismissed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

SPECIAL TERM OPINION

WOZNIAK, Chief Judge.

FACTS

Appellant Olmscheid sued respondent Paterson and respondent Minneapolis North-field and Southern Railway. Respondent railroad commenced a third-party action against respondent City of Edina. Appellant Pennsylvania General Insurance Co. moved to intervene and the motion was granted. By judgment dated February 26, 1988 the trial court dismissed the claims *313 against respondent railroad and the City of Edina. The February 26 judgment did not address the claim of appellant Olmscheid against respondent Paterson.

Appellant Pennsylvania General Insurance Co. filed a notice of appeal on May 24, 1988 seeking review of the February 26 judgment. The next day appellant Olm-scheid filed a notice of appeal seeking review of the same February 26 judgment. This court questioned jurisdiction in both appeals and directed the parties to file memoranda on the appealability of the February 26 judgment.

DECISION

A judgment which does not adjudicate all the claims of all the parties and which is not entered pursuant to an order which states that there is no just reason for delay and directs entry of final judgment is not appealable. See Minn.R.Civ. App.P. 104.01 and Minn.R.Civ.P. 54.02. It appears the only remaining claim not addressed by the February 26 judgment is the claim of appellant Olmscheid against respondent Paterson. Although we have not seen a copy of any stipulation, the parties acknowledge that claim has been settled. However, no party has produced a copy of an order or judgment which adjudicates or dismisses the claim pursuant to the settlement, nor did the trial court make the express determination specified under rule 104.01. For this reason the February 26 judgment is still a partial judgment and the appeals must be dismissed at this time. Appellants may seek review of the February 26 judgment after a final judgment is entered which dismisses the claim of appellant Olmscheid against respondent Paterson. See Minn.R.Civ.App.P. 104.01 Comment.

Appeals dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

425 N.W.2d 312, 1988 Minn. App. LEXIS 688, 1988 WL 64391, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/olmscheid-v-paterson-minnctapp-1988.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack