Davis v. Royce
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 1950, 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.
- Weckerling v. McNiven Land Co. (Minn. 1950)
- In re Estate of Stevens (Minn. 1945)
- Thompson v. Chicago & North Western Railway Co. (Minn. 1929)
- Marty v. Nordby (Minn. 1937)
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
The appeal is by plaintiff from an order refusing to vacate an order granting defendant’s motion for a new trial on the ground of misconduct of the prevailing party. The order granting a new trial did not state that it was based exclusively upon errors of law. It purported to be made in the interest of justice, and hence would come in the class of discretionary orders. Such an order is not appealable. Heide v. Lyons, 128 Minn. 488, 151 N. W. 139; 1 Dunnell, Minn. Dig. (2 ed.) § 300. It is well settled that an order refusing to vacate a nonappealable order is not appealable. Brown v. Minnesota T. Mfg. Co. 44 Minn. 322, 46 N. W. 560; Lockwood v. Bock, 46 Minn. 73, 48 N. W. 458; Security State Bank v. Brecht, 150 Minn. 502, 185 N. W. 1021; United States R. & P. Co. Inc. v. Melin, 160 Minn. 530, 200 N. W. 807.
The appeal must be dismissed.
Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.