Muirhead v. Johnson
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 1951, 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
1 later published case cites this decision.
- Muirhead v. Johnson (Minn. 1951)
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
Plaintiff and intervener moved to dismiss their respective appeals taken from a nonappealable order, without prejudice to their right to enter judgment in the action below and to appeal therefrom and to have such subsequent appeal considered upon the record and briefs already on file herein.
In direct violation of Supreme Court Rulé IV (222 Minn, xxx), plaintiff and intervener have given defendants less than eight days’ notice of hearing upon the above motions. Such motions therefore must be, and hereby are, dismissed.
However, in order to avoid a multiplicity of applications to this court, it appearing that no prejudice will result to defendants, this court of its own motion hereby dismisses the respective appeals of plaintiff and intervener herein for lack of jurisdiction. It is further ordered, in the event that judgment is subsequently entered below in the action and any appeal is taken therefrom, that such subsequent appeal may be heard and considered on the record and briefs already on file with this court.
Appeals dismissed.
Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.