MN Appeals Court Order
MN Appeals Court Order
MN Appeals Court Order
IN COURT OF APPEALS
APP
JAN 2 1 2014
In re Doug Mann,
Petitioner Doug Mann, Petitioner,
vs.
ORDER
#A14 0026
F:LED
Considered and decided by Cleary. Chief Judge: Kalitowski, Judge; and Kirk,
Judge.
FOLLOWING REASONS:
This is a petition for mandamus challenging an order filed in the district court on
November 12,2013, dismissing a petition for mandamus brought by Doug Mann in the district court. Judgment was entered on the order on November 14, 2013.
if
mandamus is
granted. Ullrich v. Newburg Twp. 8d.,648 N.W.2d 743 (Minn. App.2002). The time to
appeal a judgment expires 60 days after entry and the time to appeal any order issued
l, .02. Accordingly, the deadline for appeal in this case was January
This petition for mandamus was filed on January 9,2014. But the petition does
not address the adequacy of the ordinary remedy of a direct appeal. Mandamus will not
lie when the pany seeking relief has an ordinary legal remedy that is adequate. Minn.
Stat. $ 586.02 (2012). "Mandamus is not a substitute for, and cannot be used as, an appeal
6 N.W.2d 97, 98
the district court ruling to this court "as in other civil cases." Minn. Stat. $ 586.09
(2012). When the applicable statute authorizes an appeal, an aggrieved party is "not
entitled" to seek relief by mandamus. Gresham,2l3 Minn. at2l9, 6 N.W.2d at 98. A
party who had a statutory right to appeal, and who has allowed the time for appeal to expire, is not entitled to obtain review by mandamus. Waters v. Putnam,289 Minn. 165,
183 N.W.2d 545
(1971). When there is a statute providing for appeal, "the express terms
preclude the issuance
of [section] 586.02"
N.W.2d at 550.
l7l.
183
Mann failed to bring a timely appeal and has not established that he lacked an
adequate legal remedy. Accordingly, mandamus
IT IS HEREBY ORDER.ED:
l.
2.
Respondent's motion
BY THE COURT