Ryan v. Kranz
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 1909, 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
4 later published cases cite this decision.
- Nikannis Co. v. City of Duluth (Minn. 1909)
- Bussell v. City of Fort Dodge (Iowa 1905)
- Child v. Morgan (Minn. 1892)
- Croft v. Miller (Minn. 1879)
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
This case was tried by the district court without a jury. As conclusions of law, the court finds “that the plaintiff is not entitled to recover, and that the defendant is entitled to judgment against the plaintiff for his costs and disbursements, ” adding the words: “Let judgment be entered accordingly.” This direction is a part of the “decision” of the court, within the evident meaning of Gen. St. c. 66, § 226.. It is not an order involving the merits, or any part thereof,, within the meaning of Gen. St. c. 86, § 8, subd. 3, relating-to appeals in civil actions. It is merely a direction that an act be done which does involve the merits, to wit, that judgment be entered. It is, therefore, not appealable. Von Glahn v. Sommer, 11 Minn. 132 (203;) Lamb v. McCanna, 14 Minn. 513; Searles v. Thompson, 18 Minn. 320.
Appeal dismissed.
Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.