is likely to be confined to two situations: (1) where early review of the applicability of

a rule of law may obviate a retrial, or (2) where the party obtaining judgment should not be required to await the conclusion of the case as to other parties and issues before the time for appeal begins to run. Advisory Committee Comment - 1998 Amendments The 1998 amendments to this rule will significantly affect appellate practice. The rule is intended to simplify practice by establishing a 60-day period to effect appeals from both final judgments and appealable orders. This 60-day period will not necessarily result in an identical period to appeal from both an order and judgment, as the event that begins the running of the respective 60- day appeal periods usually will differ. However, the amendment will result in less confusion regarding the time period for appeal. Subdivision 2 is new and enumerates the post-trial motions that will toll the running of the time to appeal. The rule serves two equally important purposes: to make it clear that an appeal is not necessary until the proper motion is decided, and to avoid a party's erroneous assumption that an improper or unauthorized motion would prevent the running of an appeal deadline. The list is intended to be exhaustive for civil actions in the district courts. Rule 104.01, subd. 2(f), provides that the procedural counterparts of these motions will also prevent the running of the time to appeal until the motion is decided. The motions enumerated in this subdivision exclude "motions for reconsideration" because these motions are never required by the rules and are considered only if the trial court permits the motion to be filed. See Minn. Gen. R. Prac. 115.11, amended in 1997, effective January 1, 1998. Counsel must carefully determine whether post-trial motions are authorized in certain proceedings. See Schiltz v. City of Duluth, 449 N.W.2d 439 (Minn. 1990) (in special proceedings there must be statutory authority for new trial motions, and in the absence of such provision, a "new trial" motion, even if considered by the trial court on the merits and denied, may not result in an appealable order) and Steeves v. Campbell, 508 N.W.2d 817 (Minn. App. 1993) (new trial motion in order for protection proceedings not authorized, and order denying such motion is not Published by the Revisor of Statutes under Minnesota Statutes, section 3C.08, subdivision 1. 17 APPELLATE PROCEDURE MINNESOTA COURT RULES appealable). Subdivision 2 of Rule 104.01 replaces Rule 104.04 concerning post-trial and modification motions in marital dissolutions. Modification motions no longer extend the time in which to appeal. The affect of post-trial motions is clarified in subdivisions 2 and 3. Advisory Committee Comment - 2006 Amendments Rule 104.01, subd. 2(a) is amended to reflect the new name for a motion challenging the legal sufficiency of a verdict under Minn. R. Civ. P. 50.02. As a result of the amendment to Minn. R. Civ. P. 50.02, the former "motion for directed verdict" and "motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict" are both now referred to as motions for "judgment as a matter of law." Rule 104.01, subd. 2(a) is amended to reflect this nomenclature. During the short transition period during which timely appeals might be taken from cases where either motions for judgment notwithstanding the verdict or motions for judgment as a matter of law may have been filed after the trial court decision, the court should consider the two motions fungible in determining whether an appeal is timely. Advisory Committee Comment - 2008 Amendments The absence of motions for reconsideration or rehearing in the list of motions given tolling effect in Rule 104.01, subd. 2, is intentional. Neither requesting leave to file such a motion (as contemplated by Minn. Gen. R. Prac. 115.11), the granting of that request so the motion can be filed, nor the actual filing of the motion will toll or extend the time to appeal. A party seeking to proceed with a motion for reconsideration should pay attention to the appellate calendar and must perfect the appeal regardless of what progress has occurred with the reconsideration motion. Failure to file a timely appeal may be fatal to later review. If a timely appeal is filed notwithstanding the pendency of a request for reconsideration in the trial court, the Court of Appeals can accept the appeal as timely, but stay it to permit consideration of the reconsideration motion. See Marzitelli v. City of Little Canada, 582 N.W.2d 904, 907 (Minn. 1998), where the court stated: We note that requiring parties to file a timely appeal while a post-trial motion is pending does not deny the parties the opportunity to have the district court decide their motions. Rather, the parties may apply to the appellate court for a stay on the appeal to give the district court time to decide the pending post-trial motion. This procedure not only preserves the time limitation on appeals, but also helps to ensure that the district court hears and rules on the motion in an expedient manner. This is particularly important when the case involves a special proceeding. In such cases, the time for appeal is abbreviated to ensure a "speedy and summary determination of matters passed upon by the court[.]" (Footnotes omitted.) Advisory Committee Comment - 2009 Amendments Subdivision 4 of Rule 104.01 is a new provision. It is modeled on Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(3) and, for respondents, replaces the notice of review under former Rule 106 of these rules. The amended rule explicitly recognizes that a party may elect to appeal an issue only after learning that another party has appealed. Where a prior appeal has been filed and remains pending, a subsequent notice of appeal should be denominated "Notice of Related Appeal" and will suffice to raise any issue arising from the same trial court action. See Appendix for form of Notice of Related Appeal (Form 103C). The rule permits a party to serve and file a subsequent notice of related appeal within 14 days of the service of the first notice of appeal by another party, even if that occurs on the last day to appeal; it does not shorten the normal appeal period even if a party serves and files an appeal on the first possible day. Published by the Revisor of Statutes under Minnesota Statutes, section 3C.08, subdivision 1. APPELLATE PROCEDURE 18 MINNESOTA COURT RULES 104.02 Effect of Entry of Judgment and Insertion of Costs into the Judgment No order made prior to the entry of judgment shall be appealable after the expiration of time to appeal from the judgment. Time to appeal from the judgment pursuant to this section shall not be extended by the subsequent insertion therein of costs and disbursements. (Amended effective January 1, 1999.) 104.03 and 104.04 (Deleted effective January 1, 1999.)