McCullough and Sons, Inc. v. City of Vadnais Heights, A14-1992
2016 Minn. LEXIS 489
| Minn. | 2016Background
- McCullough & Sons owned a contaminated 9-acre parcel in Vadnais Heights; city adopted a special-assessment for nearby road improvements after a council hearing.
- McCullough’s shareholder spoke at the hearing opposing the assessment but the company did not file a written objection with the municipal clerk or present one in writing at the hearing.
- McCullough appealed the assessment to Ramsey County District Court under Minn. Stat. § 429.081. The City moved for summary judgment arguing the appeal was barred by the statutory written-objection requirement (Minn. Stat. § 429.061).
- The district court denied the City’s summary-judgment motion, finding factual issues about whether McCullough effectively objected. The City appealed that denial to the court of appeals.
- The court of appeals reversed, holding a written objection was required to preserve the right to appeal. The Minnesota Supreme Court granted review and raised, sua sponte, whether the denial of summary judgment was immediately appealable.
- The Supreme Court dismissed the City’s interlocutory appeal, vacated the court of appeals’ decision, and remanded because the order denying summary judgment was not immediately appealable and the written-objection rule is a claim-processing rule, not a jurisdictional bar.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was the district court order denying the City’s summary-judgment motion immediately appealable? | (McCullough) Order was interlocutory and not final; City’s appeal premature. | (City) Order was immediately appealable under appellate rules and special-proceeding precedent. | Denied — order was interlocutory and not appealable under rules cited; no Rule 54.02 judgment or certification. |
| Is the written-objection requirement in Minn. Stat. § 429.061 a jurisdictional limit on district-court power? | (McCullough) Requirement is a claim-processing rule; statutes use waiver/preclusion language and allow excuse for reasonable cause. | (City) Failure to file written objection deprives the district court of authority to hear the appeal. | Held it is not jurisdictional but a claim-processing rule; district courts have statutory authority to hear assessment appeals. |
| Does the collateral-order doctrine permit immediate appeal of the denial of summary judgment on the written-objection issue? | (McCullough) Even if conclusive, the order fails the ‘‘effectively unreviewable’’ prong; review after final judgment is adequate. | (City) Doctrine applies because the question would be effectively unreviewable and separable from merits. | Denied — order fails the third collateral-order requirement (not effectively unreviewable on appeal after final judgment). |
| Is the written-objection rule analogous to immunity or jurisdictional dismissal (warranting immediate appeal)? | (McCullough) Not analogous; immunity prevents trial entirely and is qualitatively different. | (City) Analogous — avoids defending improper appeals and thus should be reviewable immediately. | Rejected — court declined immunity analogy and distinguished McGowan/Will; ordinary claim-processing rules don’t warrant immediate appeal. |
Key Cases Cited
- T.A. Schifsky & Sons, Inc. v. Bahr Constr., LLC, 773 N.W.2d 783 (Minn. 2009) (discussing final-judgment requirement for appeals)
- Kontrick v. Ryan, 540 U.S. 443 (2004) (distinguishing jurisdictional rules from claim-processing rules)
- Rubey v. Vannett, 714 N.W.2d 417 (Minn. 2006) (treating procedural deadlines as non-jurisdictional claim-processing rules)
- Kastner v. Star Trails Ass’n, 646 N.W.2d 235 (Minn. 2002) (collateral-order doctrine and immediate appeals for certain issues)
- McGowan v. Our Savior’s Lutheran Church, 527 N.W.2d 830 (Minn. 1995) (allowing interlocutory appeal when challenge raises a genuine subject-matter-jurisdiction issue)
- Will v. Hallock, 546 U.S. 345 (2006) (denying categorical immediate appeal for non-immunity rights and drawing limits on collateral-order doctrine)
- Digital Equip. Corp. v. Desktop Direct, Inc., 511 U.S. 863 (1994) (discussing effective review requirement for collateral-order appeals)
- Johnson v. Jones, 515 U.S. 304 (1995) (defining separability requirement of collateral-order doctrine)