notice of the filing of an order by facsimile and on the same day was also served with notice by mail. 633 N.W.2d 852, 854 (Minn. 2001). In considering whether the appeal was properly taken from the judgment entered on the post-trial motions, we noted that the appellant “would have had an additional 3 days to file his notice of appeal if it had only been mailed." Id. at 854 n.1 (emphasis added). We did not decide whether one form of service or the other was controlling because the appellant's "appeal from notice served by fax was still timely.” Id.; see State v. Hess, 684 N.W.2d 414, 421 n.6 (Minn. 2004) ("Considerations made in a judicial opinion that are unnecessary to the decision in the case are dicta.”); State Bank of Rose Creek v. Commerce Comm’n, 305 N.W.2d 794, 797 (Minn. 1981) (<HOLDING>). 8 . As the dissent recognizes, this appeal
holding that a notice of appeal filed in an adversary proceeding could not appeal the main proceeding holding that the longer appeal period from a judgment controlled over the shorter appeal period in a certiorari proceeding when the two proceedings were consolidated in the district court and the certiorari proceeding was not an independent proceeding holding that where an action is brought by the debtors at the initial proceeding the appeal of that action is not a continuing proceeding against the debtors holding that a workers compensation proceeding is a legal proceeding holding that  3582 proceeding is criminal in nature and tenday appeal period applies