See Dean, 868 N.W.2d at 9 (appeal dismissed as moot); Peterson v. Humphrey, 381 N.W.2d 472, 475 (Minn.App. 1986) (same), rev. denied (Minn. Apr. 11, 1986); N. States Power Co. v. City of Sunfish Lake, 659 N.W.2d 271, 275 (Minn.App. 2003) (same), rev. denied (Minn. June 25, 2003).
Alyeska Pipeline Serv. Co. v. The Wilderness Soc'y, 421 U.S. 240, 240, 95 S. Ct. 1612, 1612 (1975) and Fleischmann Distilling Corp. v. Maier Brewing Co., 386 U.S. 714, 718, 87 S. Ct. 1404, 1407 (1967). According to Takuanyi, "Minnesota case law [sic] does not support an award of attorney[ ] fees for a voluntary dismissal unless there is a statutory mandate," citing N. States Power Co. v. City of Sunfish Lake, 659 N.W.2d 271 (Minn. App. 2003) and Vegemast v. DuBois, 498 N.W.2d 763 (Minn. App. 1993). However, Northern States does not discuss the issue of attorney fees for a voluntary dismissal.
Absent fraud, misrepresentation, or mutual mistake of fact, we uphold settlements between equally-situated parties, even if "a judicial decision should afterwards be made showing that these rights were different from what they supposed them to be, or showing that one of them had no rights at all, and so nothing to forego." N. States Power Co. v. City of Sunfish Lake, 659 N.W.2d 271, 274 (Minn. App. 2003) (quoting Johnson, 305 N.W.2d at 574), review denied (Minn. June 25, 2003).
N. States. Power Co. v. City of Sunfish Lake, 659 N.W.2d 271, 274 (Minn. App. 2003), (quotation omitted), review denied (Minn. June 25, 2003).
Finally, Larkin argues that the district court erred by not holding a hearing on his motion to be dismissed from the action under Minn. R. Civ. P. 41. Larkin does not contend that the district court's rule 41 analysis is erroneous; rather, he only objects to the district court's failure to hold a hearing before denying his motion. Generally, "[w]e review a district court's decision on a rule 41 motion for an abuse of discretion," N. States Power Co. v. City of Sunfish Lake, 659 N.W.2d 271, 275 (Minn. App. 2003), review denied (Minn. June 25, 2003); but "[t]he district court's conclusions of law, including the interpretation of statutes and rules, are reviewed de novo."
Wicker's counsel signed the stipulation on April 5, 2010, and Wicker does not challenge his counsel's authority to act on his behalf or allege that the settlement should be set aside for any other reason. See N. States Power Co. v. City of Sunfish Lake, 659 N.W.2d 271, 274 (Minn. App. 2003) (observing that in the absence of evidence that any party to settlement was ignorant of its rights or that settlement should be set aside for mutual mistake of fact, misrepresentation, or any other ground, "[t]he strong public policy interest in the finality of settlements" obliges courts to enforce a stipulated agreement when "the parties made a good-faith settlement on the basis of what they then understood the law to be" (quotations omitted)), review denied (Minn. June 23, 2003).
In re McCaskill, 603 N.W.2d 326, 327 (Minn. 1999); N. States Power Co. v. City of Sunfish Lake, 659 N.W.2d 271, 274 (Minn. App. 2003), review denied (Minn. June 25, 2003).
In re McCaskill, 603 N.W.2d 326, 327 (Minn. 1999); N. States Potter Co. v. City of Sunfish Lake, 659 N.W.2d 271, 274 (Minn.App. 2003), review denied (Minn. Jun. 25, 2003).
As a general rule, courts decide only actual controversies and avoid giving advisory opinions. N. States Power Co. v. City of Sunfish Lake, 659 N.W.2d 271, 274 (Minn.App. 2003). We decline to address the remaining 71 provisions of the city's ordinance.
1999). When an appeal is pending, if an event occurs that makes a decision on the merits unnecessary or an award of effective relief impossible, the appeal should be dismissed as moot. N. States Power Co. v. City of Sunfish Lake, 659 N.W.2d 271, 274 (Minn.App. 2003), review denied (Minn. June 25, 2003). Courts consider "mootness a flexible discretionary doctrine, not a mechanical rule that is invoked automatically."