Minn. R. Civ. App. P. 103.03

As amended through October 28, 2024

Rule 103.03 - Appealable Judgments and Orders

An appeal may be taken to the Court of Appeals:

(a) from a final judgment, or from a partial judgment entered pursuant to Minn. R. Civ. P. 54.02;

(b) from an order which grants, refuses, dissolves or refuses to dissolve, an injunction;

(c) from an order vacating or sustaining an attachment;

(d) from an order denying a new trial, or from an order granting a new trial if the trial court expressly states therein, or in a memorandum attached thereto, that the order is based exclusively upon errors of law occurring at the trial, and upon no other ground; and the trial court shall specify such errors in its order or memorandum, but upon appeal, such order granting a new trial may be sustained for errors of law prejudicial to respondent other than those specified by the trial court;

(e) from an order which, in effect, determines the action and prevents a judgment from which an appeal might be taken;

(f) from a final order or judgment made or rendered in proceedings supplementary to execution;

(g) except as otherwise provided by statute, from a final order, decision or judgment affecting a substantial right made in an administrative or other special proceeding;

(h) from an order that grants or denies modification of custody, visitation, maintenance, or child support provisions in an existing judgment or decree;

(i) if the trial court certifies that the question presented is important and doubtful, from an order which denies a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted or from an order which denies a motion for summary judgment; and

(j) from such other orders or decisions as may be appealable by statute or under the decisions of the Minnesota appellate courts.

Minn. R. Civ. App. P. 103.03

Amended effective 7/1/2014.

Comment - 1983
An order for judgment is not an appealable order. There is a right of appeal only from a judgment or an order enumerated in Rule 103.03. An appeal from any order not specifically included in Rule 103.03is discretionary, and permission must be sought by petition as provided in Rule 105.
Two substantial changes have been made in Rule 103.03. The deletion from clause (a) of "order for judgment" marks a return to former practice: a judgment is appealable; an order for judgment is not appealable. Because of the uncertainties resulting from its broad, unspecific language, former clause (d) "From an order involving the merits of the action or some part thereof" has also been deleted. Review of any order not specifically enumerated in Rule 103.03is discretionary only, and permission to appeal must be sought pursuant to Rule 105.
Advisory Committee Comment - 1998 Amendments
While Rule 103.03 contains a nearly exhaustive list of appealable orders and judgments, it is not the exclusive basis for appellate jurisdiction. See In re State & Regents Bldg. Asbestos Cases, 435 N.W.2d 521 (Minn. 1989); Anderson v. City of Hopkins, 393 N.W.2d 363 (Minn. 1986). In these and other cases, the Minnesota Supreme Court has recognized that there are certain instances in which an appeal may be allowed as a matter of right even though the ground for that appeal is not found expressly in the provisions of Rule 103.03. Such instances include:
Orders granting or denying motions to dismiss or for summary judgment when the motions are based on the trial court's alleged lack of personal or subject matter jurisdiction, regardless of whether the motion seeks dismissal of the entire action. See McGowan v. Our Savior's Lutheran Church, 527 N.W.2d 830, 833 (Minn. 1995)(order denying summary judgment is appealable when motion is based on district court's lack of subject matter jurisdiction); Hunt v. Nevada State Bank, 285 Minn. 77, 88-89, 172 N.W.2d 292, 298 (1996) (order denying motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction immediately appealable of right).
Orders denying motions to dismiss or for summary judgment based on governmental immunity from suit, provided that the denial is not based on the existence of a question of fact. See Anderson, 393 N.W.2d at 364 (order denying defendant's motion for summary judgment is appealable when motion is based on governmental immunity from suit); Carter v. Cole, 526 N.W.2d 209 (Minn. App. 1995), aff'd, 539 N.W.2d 241 (Minn. 1995) (affirming dismissal of appeal from order denying government official's motion for summary judgment based solely on the finding that there is a genuine issue of material fact whether the official committed the acts alleged; reserving question of appealability of an order denying summary judgment where the genuine issues of material fact identified by the trial court are related to the issue of immunity, and not to the merits of the claim); see also Johnson v. Jones, 515 U.S. 304, 115 S. Ct. 2151, 132 L.Ed.2d 238 (1995) (order denying summary judgment on immunity grounds not appealable where motion is denied because of genuine issue of material fact).
Orders vacating final orders or judgments, when the orders are issued after the time to appeal the underlying orders or judgments has expired, or from orders refusing to vacate default judgments. See State & Regents, 435 N.W.2d at 522 (order vacating final judgment is appealable); Spicer v. Carefree Vacations, Inc., 370 N.W.2d 424 (Minn. 1985)(denial of a Rule 60 motion is appealable if the judgment is rendered ex parte against a party who has made no appearance). But see Carlson v. Panuska, 555 N.W.2d 745 (Minn. 1996) (Spicer exception applies only to true default judgments and not to "default" judgments entered after contested hearings for failure to comply with discovery orders).
In addition, certain statutes provide for appeals as a matter of right, even though Rule 103.03 does not expressly provide. See, e.g., Minnesota Statutes, section 572, 26, subdivision 1 (listing appealable orders in arbitration proceedings, which are not "special" proceedings under Rule 103.03), Pulju v. Metropolitan Property & Cas., 535 N.W.2d 608 (Minn. 1995).
These examples are not intended to be exhaustive, but rather to emphasize that there are limited grounds for appeal other than those set forth in Rule 103.03. See generally Scott W. Johnson, Common Law Appellate Jurisdiction, BENCH & BAR OF MINN., Sept. 1997, at 31.
Advisory Committee Comment - 2000 Amendments
Rule 103.03is amended to add a new subdivision (h) and renumber existing paragraphs (h) and (i) to become (i) and (j). The purpose of this amendment is to clarify that orders that grant or deny modification of custody, visitation, maintenance, and support provisions are appealable in accordance with Angelos v. Angelos, 367 N.W.2d 518 (Minn. 1985). These orders are appealable under paragraph (g) (final order in a special proceeding), but because of the volume of such orders, as well as the frequent involvement of proselitigants, the Committee believes an explicit provision will minimize confusion. This change is not intended to expand appealability of otherwise unappealable orders, but rather, is meant to have the rule correctly identify these orders as appealable.
Advisory Committee Comment-2009 Amendments
Rule 103.02 is amended to add a new subdivision 2 to establish a new procedure for filing of a cross-appeal or another related appeal after any party has filed a notice of appeal. This rule applies in civil cases, as the Minnesota Rules of Criminal Procedure address the right to file a cross-appeal in criminal cases. See Minn. R. Crim. P. 28.04, subd. 3. The new notice is denominated a "Notice of Related Appeal." See Appendix for form of Notice of Related Appeal (Form 103C). This procedure replaces the notice-of-review procedure formerly established by Rule 106. Existing subdivision 2 is renumbered as subdivision 3 and is amended to provide for consolidation of related appeals from a single trial court proceeding. This consolidation may be ordered by the court based on information in the statement of the case or may be ordered upon motion of any party to any related appeal.
Advisory Committee Comment-2014 Amendments
The change to Rule 103.02, subdivision 2, is simply to remove the requirement for certified copies of the orders or judgment appealed from, and is a companion change to the amendment to Rule 103.01, subdivision 1. The amended rule continues to require providing copies of the judgments or orders; it is no longer necessary that they be certified by the trial court administrator.
Similarly, only a single copy of the statement of the case is required under this rule, and a cost bond is not normally required. These changes conform the procedure for a party filing a notice of related appeal to that for the appellant.