Minnesota Supreme Court, 1973

Weinzierl v. Lien

Minnesota Supreme Court · Decided July 6, 1973 · Knutson, Peterson, Murphy, Schultz, Yetka, Scott

209 N.W.2d 424; 296 Minn. 539; 1973 Minn. LEXIS 1276 (North Western Reporter, Second Series)

Counsel

Robert H. Simons, for appellants., Robert A. NicJclaus and Dwight J. Leatham, for respondent.

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 2016, 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

10 later published cases cite this decision.

McCullough and Sons, Inc. v. City of Vadnais Heights, A14-1992 (Minn. 2016)
In re GlaxoSmithKline Plc (Minn. 2005)
Gordon v. Microsoft Corp. (Minn. 2002)
In re Estate of Janecek (Minn. 2000)
In re Paternity of BJH (Minn. Ct. App. 1998)
A.J.S. v. M.T.H. (Minn. Ct. App. 1998)
Emme v. C.O.M.B., Inc. (Minn. 1988)
Zizak v. Despatch Industries, Inc. (Minn. Ct. App. 1988)
Parson v. Argue (Minn. Ct. App. 1984)
In re the Welfare of K. P. H. (Minn. 1980)

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

Per Curiam.

Appeal from an order of the district court reinstating the court’s findings of fact, conclusions of law, and order for judgment in an action involving a boundary line dispute.

Since the appeal is fatally defective, we dismiss. Rule 103, Rules of Civil Appellate Procedure, sets out those orders from which an appeal *540 of right may be taken. In construing this rule and its antecedent, Minn. St. 605.09, this court has consistently held that an order is not appeal-able unless in effect it finally determines the action or finally determines some positive legal right of the appellant relating to the action. Johnson v. Giese, 230 Minn. 185, 40 N. W. 2d 909 (1950); Shema v. Thorpe Bros. 238 Minn. 470, 57 N. W. 2d 157 (1953); Kempf v. Kempf, 287 Minn. 529, 177 N. W. 2d 40 (1970). We can perceive of no basis on which an order reinstating findings of fact, conclusions of law, and order for judgment can be given different effect than one denying a motion to amend such an order.

It may be added that we have carefully examined the record and conclude that the exercise of discretionary review under Rule 105 is not warranted since the record amply sustains the trial court’s determination.

Appeal dismissed.

Mr. Justice Yetka and Mr. Justice Scott, not having been members of this court at the time of the argument and submission, took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.

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