Opinion ID: 1231372
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: minnesota impermissibly restricts codified term-time vacation power

Text: The provisions of § 1031.1 are declaratory of the common law. They codify the Anglo-American concept of control which trial judges are allowed to retain over judgments for a limited time following their rendition. The power so reposed in the trial bench is entirely unrestricted by both the § 1031 grounds for vacation and by the § 653 time limited for filing a new trial motion. [9] Failure timely to invoke § 653 relief has never been a bar to the exercise of term-time vacation power. [10] The post-judgment remedies available to a defeated litigant via a new-trial motion under § 653 and via vacation efforts under § 1031.1 are indeed separate and distinct, though concededly overlapping and cumulative. Each may be invoked independently of the other. Minnesota impermissibly abridges the trial court's codified term-time vacation power by limiting its invokability, availability and exercise solely to those specified § 1031 grounds which were not available for inclusion in a new-trial motion. [11] V.