Minnesota Statutes

Minn. Stat. § 605.09 (2026)

[Repealed]

✓ current as of May 2026

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

[Repealed, 1974 c 394 s 11]

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 85 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1942–2024 · leading case: Richards v. Reiter, 796 N.W.2d 509 (Minn. 2011).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Richards v. Reiter, 796 N.W.2d 509 (Minn. 2011). · cites it 10× “09 was repealed in 1974 when the Legislature eliminated certain statutory provisions that conflicted with portions of the Rules of Civil Appellate Procedure.”

Ginsberg v. Williams, 135 N.W.2d 213 (Minn. 1965). · cites it 15× “1941, § 605.09, apparently provoked thereby, an order granting a new trial consistently has been held nonappealable unless based exclusively upon errors of law occurring at the trial.”

House v. Hanson, 72 N.W.2d 874 (Minn. 1955). · cites it 6× “the Supreme Court under § 605.09 (4). Procedural changes which merely substitute new labels for the products of the judicial process, without changing their essential nature, neither repeal nor circumvent the grounds of review given to a litigant under § 605.”

Chapman v. Dorsey, 16 A.L.R. 2d 1015 (Minn. 1950). · cites it 4× “16, to join additional parties defendant, is appeal-able under § 605.09(3 and 1), which provide: “An appeal may be taken to the supreme court by the aggrieved party in the following cases: ***** “(3) From an order involving the merits of the action or some part thereof; * * * *…”

Chapman v. Dorsey, 230 Minn. 279 (Minn. 1950). · cites it 4× “16, to join additional parties defendant, is appealable under § 605.09 (3 and 1), which provide: "An appeal may be taken to the supreme court by the aggrieved party in the following cases: * * * * * "(3) From an order involving the merits of the action or some part thereof; * *…”

State v. Sax, 42 N.W.2d 680 (Minn. 1950). · cites it 6× “24 lends added support to the conclusions that the mother has the right to appeal under § 605.09. By § 257.19, it is within the discretion of the county attorney to refuse to prosecute the action.”

Morey v. Sch. Bd. of Indep. Sch. Dist. No. 492, 128 N.W.2d 302 (Minn. 1964). · cites it 6× “1961, § 605.09, was amended by L. 1963, c. 806, § 8, and appeals from orders made in special proceedings are now governed by Minn.”

State Ex Rel. Turnbladh v. Dist. Court of Ramsey Cnty., 107 N.W.2d 307 (Minn. 1960). · cites it 6× “[2] Section 605.09(2) provides for appeal to the supreme court "From an order * * * which grants, refuses, dissolves, or refuses to dissolve, an injunction, * * *.”

Twin Cities Metro. Pub. Transit Area v. Holter, 249 N.W.2d 458 (Minn. 1977). · cites it 4× “1961, § 605.09, and Minn. St. 1941, § 605.09, respectively, each of which provided: “An appeal may be taken to the supreme court by the aggrieved party in the following cases: * * (Italics supplied.”

Nelson v. Nelson, 415 N.W.2d 694 (Minn. Ct. App. 1987). · cites it 4× “However, respondent argues that Rehnberg is no longer good law because it was decided on language from Minn.Stat. § 605.09(2) which was repealed in 1974.”

Minnesota Dep't of Highways v. Minnesota Dep't of Human Rights, 241 N.W.2d 310 (Minn. 1976). · cites it 4× “10 provides for appeal to this court as follows: “The commissioner, or the respondent, may appeal to the supreme court as provided by section 605.09, clauses (b) and (g) from an order of the district court issued pursuant to section 363.”

Royal Realty Co. v. Levin, 66 N.W.2d 5 (Minn. 1954). · cites it 4× “02 is an order “involving the merits of the action” within the meaning of § 605.09(3) and is an appealable order. We have held that an order is not appealable under § 605.”

Show all 85 citing cases →

— Minn. Stat. § 605.09(1) — 9 cases

Anderson v. Mikel Drilling Co., 102 N.W.2d 293 (Minn. 1960).

Storey v. Weinberg, 31 N.W.2d 912 (Minn. 1948).

Shema v. Thorpe Bros., 57 N.W.2d 157 (Minn. 1953).

In Re Est. of Hore, 19 N.W.2d 778 (Minn. 1945).

Anderson v. Gabrielson, 126 N.W.2d 239 (Minn. 1964).

— Minn. Stat. § 605.09(2) — 5 cases

State Ex Rel. Turnbladh v. Dist. Court of Ramsey Cnty., 107 N.W.2d 307 (Minn. 1960). “[2] Section 605.09(2) provides for appeal to the supreme court "From an order * * * which grants, refuses, dissolves, or refuses to dissolve, an injunction, * * *.”

Nelson v. Nelson, 415 N.W.2d 694 (Minn. Ct. App. 1987). “However, respondent argues that Rehnberg is no longer good law because it was decided on language from Minn.Stat. § 605.09(2) which was repealed in 1974.”

Bellows v. Ericson, 46 N.W.2d 654 (Minn. 1951).

St. Croix Dev., LLC v. Gossman, 735 N.W.2d 320 (Minn. 2007).

Favorite v. Minneapolis Street Ry. Co., 91 N.W.2d 459 (Minn. 1958).

— Minn. Stat. § 605.09(3) — 13 cases

Ginsberg v. Williams, 135 N.W.2d 213 (Minn. 1965). “1941, § 605.09, apparently provoked thereby, an order granting a new trial consistently has been held nonappealable unless based exclusively upon errors of law occurring at the trial.”

City of Waite Park v. Minnesota Off. of Admin. Hearings, 758 N.W.2d 347 (Minn. Ct. App. 2008).

Wallace T. Bruce, Inc. v. Najarian, 81 N.W.2d 282 (Minn. 1957).

Chapman v. Dorsey, 16 A.L.R. 2d 1015 (Minn. 1950). “16, to join additional parties defendant, is appeal-able under § 605.09(3 and 1), which provide: “An appeal may be taken to the supreme court by the aggrieved party in the following cases: ***** “(3) From an order involving the merits of the action or some part thereof; * * * *…”

Chapman v. Dorsey, 230 Minn. 279 (Minn. 1950). “16, to join additional parties defendant, is appealable under § 605.09 (3 and 1), which provide: "An appeal may be taken to the supreme court by the aggrieved party in the following cases: * * * * * "(3) From an order involving the merits of the action or some part thereof; * *…”

— Minn. Stat. § 605.09(4) — 23 cases

House v. Hanson, 72 N.W.2d 874 (Minn. 1955). “the Supreme Court under § 605.09 (4). Procedural changes which merely substitute new labels for the products of the judicial process, without changing their essential nature, neither repeal nor circumvent the grounds of review given to a litigant under § 605.”

In Re Est. & Guardianships of Williams, 254 Minn. 272 (Minn. 1959).

Purdy v. Nordquist, 95 N.W.2d 91 (Minn. 1959).

Royal Realty Co. v. Levin, 66 N.W.2d 5 (Minn. 1954). “02 is an order “involving the merits of the action” within the meaning of § 605.09(3) and is an appealable order. We have held that an order is not appealable under § 605.”

— Minn. Stat. § 605.09(5) — 1 case

Phillips v. Brandt, 43 N.W.2d 285 (Minn. 1950).

— Minn. Stat. § 605.09(7) — 7 cases

Morey v. Sch. Bd. of Indep. Sch. Dist. No. 492, 128 N.W.2d 302 (Minn. 1964). “1961, § 605.09, was amended by L. 1963, c. 806, § 8, and appeals from orders made in special proceedings are now governed by Minn.”

In Re Am. Finnish Workers Soc'y, 76 N.W.2d 708 (Minn. 1956).

Gabel v. Ferodowill, 95 N.W.2d 101 (Minn. 1959).

— Minn. Stat. § 605.09(a) — 1 case

Locke v. Henry, 141 N.W.2d 736 (Minn. 1966).

— Minn. Stat. § 605.09(b) — 1 case

State Ex Rel. Balfour v. Bergeron, 187 N.W.2d 680 (Minn. 1971).

— Minn. Stat. § 605.09(d) — 2 cases

Locke v. Henry, 141 N.W.2d 736 (Minn. 1966).

Merz v. Oftedal, 144 N.W.2d 58 (Minn. 1966).

— Minn. Stat. § 605.09(f) — 2 cases

In Re Objections & Defenses, Etc., 320 N.W.2d 729 (Minn. 1982).

Vill. Apts. v. State, 320 N.W.2d 729 (Minn. 1982).

— Minn. Stat. § 605.09(g) — 2 cases

City of Chaska v. Chaska Twp., 135 N.W.2d 195 (Minn. 1965).

State Ex Rel. Balfour v. Bergeron, 187 N.W.2d 680 (Minn. 1971).

— Minn. Stat. § 605.09(h) — 2 cases

Balts v. Balts, 142 N.W.2d 66 (Minn. 1966).

Merz v. Oftedal, 144 N.W.2d 58 (Minn. 1966).

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.