Minnesota Statutes

Minn. Stat. § 237.26 (2026)

Order Final And Conclusive

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MN-REVrevisor.mn.gov (official) Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

If no appeal is taken from any order of the commission, as above provided, then in all litigation thereafter arising between the state and any telephone company or between private parties and any telephone company, the order shall be deemed final and conclusive.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 8 cases, 1974–1998 · leading case: H.J. Inc. v. Nw. Bell Corp., 420 N.W.2d 673 (Minn. Ct. App. 1988).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

H.J. Inc. v. Nw. Bell Corp., 420 N.W.2d 673 (Minn. Ct. App. 1988). · cites it 6× “The statute provides: If no appeal is taken from any order of the commission * * *, then in all litigation thereafter arising between * * * private parties and any telephone company, the order shall be deemed final and conclusive.”

Matter of Intra-Lata Equal Access, 532 N.W.2d 583 (Minn. Ct. App. 1995). · cites it 4× “Minn.Stat. § 237.26 (1992). The Commission and intervenors move to dismiss this appeal on the grounds that the issues were decided by the prior unappealed orders in Dockets 212 and 582.”

H.J., Inc. v. Nw. Bell Tel. Co., 734 F. Supp. 879 (D. Minnesota 1990). · cites it 4× “the rate proceeding, and concluded that plaintiffs’ claim “would still be a collateral attack on a rate order in violation of Minn. Stat. § 237.26 .” 420 N.W.2d at 676 .”

H.J. Inc. v. Nw. Bell Tel. Co., 954 F.2d 485 (8th Cir. 1992). · cites it 3× “class’s unjust enrichment claim was barred by Minn.Stat. Ann. § 237.26 (West 1972) because it was a collateral attack on a ratemaking decision of the Commission.”

Nw. Bell Tel. Co. v. State, 216 N.W.2d 841 (Minn. 1974). “” Finally, § 237.26 provides: “If no appeal is taken from any order of the department, as above provided, then in all litigation thereafter arising between the state and any telephone company or between private parties and any telephone company, the order shall be deemed final…”

State ex rel. Spannaus v. Nw. Bell Tel. Co., 304 N.W.2d 872 (Minn. 1981). · cites it 2× “” 1 The company also relies on section 237.26, which provides: “If no appeal is taken from any order of the department, as above provided, then in all litigation thereafter arising between the state and any telephone company or between private parties and any telephone company,…”

In Re the Quantification of Env't Costs, 578 N.W.2d 794 (Minn. Ct. App. 1998). · cites it 2× “Additionally, because the commission’s order is a final order, see Minn.Stat. § 237.26 (1996) (stating commission’s decision is final if no appeal taken), and because the statute clearly requires the commission to use the values in some manner, see Minn.”

Contel of Minnesota, Inc. v. Minnesota Pub. Utils. Comm'n, 532 N.W.2d 583 (Minn. Ct. App. 1995). · cites it 4× “Minn.Stat. § 237.26 (1992). The Commission and intervenors move to dismiss this appeal on the grounds that the issues were decided by the prior unappealed orders in Dockets 212 and 582.”

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.