Minnesota Supreme Court, 1969

Cohen v. Globe Business Sales, Inc.

Cohen v. Globe Business Sales, Inc.
Minnesota Supreme Court · Decided February 28, 1969 · Knutson, Murphy, Rogosheske, Sheran, Peterson
166 N.W.2d 704; 282 Minn. 540; 1969 Minn. LEXIS 1255 (North Western Reporter, Second Series)

Counsel

Haugen & Quello and Allan T. Quello, for appellant., Wellington Tully, Jr., for respondents.

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 1976, 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

Cohen v. Globe Business Sales, Inc.

Cases that cite this one

4 later published cases cite this decision.

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

*541 Per Curiam.

Plaintiffs move to dismiss defendant’s appeal from an order of the Hennepin County Municipal Court dated February 9, 1968. The notice of appeal inaccurately describes this order as one “denying defendant’s motion for vacation of Judgment” and also inaccurately states “the Judgment [was] entered on February 4, 1968.”

On January 4, 1968, the court entered an order granting plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment. Before judgment was entered, defendant moved for “vacation of the Judgment rendered January 4, 1968.” On February 9, 1968, the court denied this motion. Defendant’s notice of appeal dated February 16, 1968, was served on plaintiffs’ counsel on February 19, 1968. As of that time, no judgment had been entered. Thereafter, on March 12, 1968, judgment was entered in favor of plaintiffs against defendant.

We construe the appeal as being one from an order denying a motion to vacate an order granting summary judgment. As such, the appeal is from a nonappealable order. An order granting summary judgment is not appealable as of right since it is not a final order. Shema v. Thorpe Bros. 238 Minn. 470, 57 N. W. (2d) 157. Under the general rule rendering nonappealable an order denying a motion to vacate a nonappealable order, Smith v. Illinois Cent. R. Co. 244 Minn. 52, 68 N. W. (2d) 638, there is no right to appeal from an order denying a motion to vacate an order granting summary judgment. LeRoy v. Figure Skating Club of Minneapolis, 281 Minn. 576, 162 N. W. (2d) 248.

We cannot treat the notice of appeal as being from the judgment thereafter entered. As of February 19, 1968, when the appeal was taken, no judgment had been entered. Welch v. Welch, 267 Minn. 558, 127 N. W. (2d) 438. It is now too late for defendant to perfect a proper appeal. Over 90 days have elapsed since the judgment was entered. No appeal having been perfected from the judgment since its entry, this court does not have jurisdiction to permit a proper appeal to be completed.

Appeal dismissed.

Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.