Skip to main content
DRAFT FOR ATTORNEY REVIEW — NOT FINAL

Scroggins v. Solchaga, 552 N.W.2d 248 (1996)

Citation
Scroggins v. Solchaga, 552 N.W.2d 248 (1996)
Parent Document
Scroggins v. Solchaga, 552 N.W.2d 248 (1996)
Jurisdiction
Minnesota (state)
Effective Date
1996-07-16

Other Sections in This Document (54)

Full Text

585 chars
Tenant also claims that the judge’s comments in the first unlawful detainer action show that he was prejudiced against tenant in his action. As noted, under both the provisions pleaded by tenant and the provision under which the district court granted relief, whether to release funds held by the court and whether to order rent abatement are discretionary decisions. Because the remedy ordered by the district court was within its discretion, even if the judge was prejudiced, and we do not hold that he was, that prejudice was harmless. See Minn.R.Civ.P. 61 (harmless error ignored).