Rice v. First Division of the St. Paul & Pacific Railroad
Can I rely on this case?
Citation treatment has not been reviewed for this case. The notes below come from the citation graph and the Minnesota Revisor's amendment records, not from a review of how later courts treated this decision.
(as of 9/30/2026)
Last cited by a Minnesota appellate court in 1888, among the opinions in this site’s citation index.
Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
See our Terms of Use before relying on these notes. Report an error
Cases that cite this one
2 later published cases cite this decision.
- National Albany Exchange Bank v. Cargill (Minn. 1888)
- Exley v. Berryhill (Minn. 1886)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
These are all attempted appeals from orders refusing to strike out certain portions of the complaints in the above entitled actions as irrevelant and redundant Such orders are not appealable. The only ground upon which it is contended that they are appealable is that they involve the merits of the action or some part thereof. If the matter objected to is irrevelant or redundant it has, for that very reason, nothing to do with the merits of the action; that is to say, with the substantial matter in controversy, which is the subject of the action, or with any part thereof. Hence an order refusing to strike it out cannot affect, dispose of, or in any way involve the merits of the action or any part thereof. Whitney v. Waterman, 4 How. Pr. 313; Bedell v. Stickles, 4 How. Pr. 432; Field v. Stewart, 8 Abb. Pr. N. S. 193; Murphy v. Dickinson, 40 How. Pr. 66; Hughes v. Merc. Ins. Co. 10 Abb. Pr. N. S. 37; Morehouse v. Yeager, 6 Jones & Spencer, 50.
The appeals are dismissed.
Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.