Rice Park Properties v. Robins, Kaplan, Miller & Ciresi

532 N.W.2d 556, 1995 Minn. LEXIS 452, 1995 WL 330891
CourtSupreme Court of Minnesota
DecidedMay 31, 1995
DocketC2-95-344
StatusPublished
Cited by9 cases

This text of 532 N.W.2d 556 (Rice Park Properties v. Robins, Kaplan, Miller & Ciresi) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Minnesota primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Rice Park Properties v. Robins, Kaplan, Miller & Ciresi, 532 N.W.2d 556, 1995 Minn. LEXIS 452, 1995 WL 330891 (Mich. 1995).

Opinion

ORDER

Based upon all the files, records and proceedings herein,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition of defendant Robins, Kaplan, Miller & Ciresi for further review of the March 3, 1995 order of the court of appeals be, and the same is, granted for the purpose of reversing the issuance of the writ of mandamus. The plaintiff Rice Park Properties sought a writ of mandamus to compel the Ramsey County District Court to vacate its stay of unlawful detainer proceedings pending the final disposition in a related and earlier filed declaratory judgment action commenced by the defendant, petitioner herein, the Robins law firm. The trial court was persuaded that, to avoid an unnecessary duplication of time, effort and expenditure of funds that would result from requiring a determination as to the right of possession to the leased premises in each of the two separate proceedings, trial of the later-filed unlawful detainer action should await resolution of the declaratory judgment action.

It is our view that, while Minn.Stat. § 566.08 (1994) contemplates prompt disposition of these summary proceedings, the district court has considerable discretion in scheduling matters and in furthering what it has identified as the interests of judicial administration and economy. Under the circumstances presented, there has been no showing that the orders of the district court constitute an abuse of that discretion. The order of the court of appeals is reversed and the underlying petition for the writ of mandamus filed by Rice Park Properties is denied.

BY THE COURT:

/s/ Esther M. Tomljanovich Associate Justice

PAGE, J., took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.

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

Related

State of Minnesota v. Nicholas Scott Thompson
Court of Appeals of Minnesota, 2026
Madison Equities, Inc. v. Robert L. Crockarell
889 N.W.2d 568 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 2017)
Deutsche Bank National Trust Co. v. Hanson
841 N.W.2d 161 (Court of Appeals of Minnesota, 2014)
Bjorklund v. Bjorklund Trucking, Inc.
753 N.W.2d 312 (Court of Appeals of Minnesota, 2008)
Riehm v. Commissioner of Public Safety
745 N.W.2d 869 (Court of Appeals of Minnesota, 2008)
State v. Hart
723 N.W.2d 254 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 2006)
State v. Lindsey
632 N.W.2d 652 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 2001)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
532 N.W.2d 556, 1995 Minn. LEXIS 452, 1995 WL 330891, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rice-park-properties-v-robins-kaplan-miller-ciresi-minn-1995.