Therefore, we cannot say that the district court's viewing of the property improperly impacted its order. 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.
Tenant challenges the second unlawful detainer judgment.
Lanthier is distinguishable. It involved a voluntary vacation of the premises. There, the defendant appealed to district court, where the plaintiff sought to dismiss the case. The district court dismissed the case and awarded possession of the property back to the defendant. The plaintiff appealed the re-restitution of the premises to the defendant.