Primus v. Johnson

Court of Appeals of Minnesota

Primus v. Johnson

426 N.W.2d 497, 1988 Minn. App. LEXIS 735, 1988 WL 78750

CourtCourt of Appeals of Minnesota

DecidedAugust 2, 1988

DocketNo. CX-88-1271

StatusPublished

This text of 426 N.W.2d 497 (Primus v. Johnson) 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

Primus v. Johnson, 426 N.W.2d 497, 1988 Minn. App. LEXIS 735, 1988 WL 78750 (Mich. Ct. App. 1988).

Pincite

Opinion

SPECIAL TERM OPINION

WOZNIAK, Chief Judge.

FACTS

Appellants’ attorney made a reference to an insurance company in his opening statement at trial. Because of this reference, the trial court ordered a mistrial and awarded respondents their costs and disbursements. Appellants seek review of the order granting a mistrial and the judgment awarding costs and disbursements. This court questioned jurisdiction and directed the parties to file memoranda on the ap-pealability of the order and judgment. Respondents move to dismiss the appeal.

DECISION

The granting of a new trial for misconduct of counsel is a discretionary matter from which there is no absolute right of appeal. Cashman v. Matson, 286 Minn. 516, 517, 174 N.W.2d 236, 237 (1970); see Minn.R.Civ.App.P. 103.03(d) (order granting new trial appealable only if trial court expressly states order is based exclusively upon errors of law occurring at trial). The new trial order in this case is based, on misconduct of counsel and not errors of law, and it is not appealable.

Appellants also seek review of the judgment for costs and disbursements awarded to respondents. A judgment which does not adjudicate all claims of all parties, and which is not entered pursuant to an order stating there is no just reason for delay and directing entry of a final partial judgment, is not appealable. Minn. R.Civ.App.P. 104.01; Minn.R.Civ.P. 54.02. The outstanding claims of the parties will be resolved in the new trial. The trial court did not make the express determination which would permit immediate appeal and the partial judgment appealed is therefore not appealable.

Even if the trial court had expressly directed entry of a final partial judgment on costs and disbursements, the propriety of granting a mistrial would not be reviewable, since it is inappropriate to enter judgment on an order granting a mistrial. See Minn.R.Civ.P. 58.01. Appellants may seek review of the award of costs and disbursements on appeal from a final judgment entered after the second trial. See Erickson v. Hinckley Municipal Liquor Store, 373 N.W.2d 318, 326 (Minn.Ct.App.1985). Respondents’ motion to dismiss is granted and this appeal is dismissed.

Appeal dismissed.

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

SPECIAL TERM OPINION

WOZNIAK, Chief Judge.

FACTS

Appellants’ attorney made a reference to an insurance company in his opening statement at trial. Because of this reference, the trial court ordered a mistrial and awarded respondents their costs and disbursements. Appellants seek review of the order granting a mistrial and the judgment awarding costs and disbursements. This court questioned jurisdiction and directed the parties to file memoranda on the ap-pealability of the order and judgment. Respondents move to dismiss the appeal.

DECISION

The granting of a new trial for misconduct of counsel is a discretionary matter from which there is no absolute right of appeal. Cashman v. Matson, 286 Minn. 516, 517, 174 N.W.2d 236, 237 (1970); see Minn.R.Civ.App.P. 103.03(d) (order granting new trial appealable only if trial court expressly states order is based exclusively upon errors of law occurring at trial). The new trial order in this case is based, on misconduct of counsel and not errors of law, and it is not appealable.

Appellants also seek review of the judgment for costs and disbursements awarded to respondents. A judgment which does not adjudicate all claims of all parties, and which is not entered pursuant to an order stating there is no just reason for delay and directing entry of a final partial judgment, is not appealable. Minn. R.Civ.App.P. 104.01; Minn.R.Civ.P. 54.02. The outstanding claims of the parties will be resolved in the new trial. The trial court did not make the express determination which would permit immediate appeal and the partial judgment appealed is therefore not appealable.

Even if the trial court had expressly directed entry of a final partial judgment on costs and disbursements, the propriety of granting a mistrial would not be reviewable, since it is inappropriate to enter judgment on an order granting a mistrial. See Minn.R.Civ.P. 58.01. Appellants may seek review of the award of costs and disbursements on appeal from a final judgment entered after the second trial. See Erickson v. Hinckley Municipal Liquor Store, 373 N.W.2d 318, 326 (Minn.Ct.App.1985). Respondents’ motion to dismiss is granted and this appeal is dismissed.

Appeal dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

426 N.W.2d 497, 1988 Minn. App. LEXIS 735, 1988 WL 78750, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/primus-v-johnson-minnctapp-1988.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack