Legal Opinion
Differt v. Rendahl
Supreme Court of Minnesota
Decided June 19, 1981No. 51684PublishedCited by 9 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
SHERAN, Chief Justice.
The only issue before us is whether the trial court correctly ruled that the plaintiff’s filing of a motion for a new trial more than 15 days after serving notice of the filing of an order was not timely under Minn.R.Civ.P. 59.03. We affirm.
This action by a tenant-in-common for an accounting was tried to a jury. The jury returned a special verdict in favor of the plaintiff that gave her most of the requested relief. The jury’s verdict was incorporated into an order for judgment which was filed June 9, 1980.
On June 12, 1980, the plaintiff served notice upon the counsel of…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Bowman v. Pamida, Inc.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1977
3Cited by9 opinions
- Rieman v. JoubertSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1985
- Mattson v. Rochester Silo, Inc.Court of Appeals of Minnesota · 1987
- 650 North Main Association v. Frauenshuh, Inc. (Territorial Springs Riverview, LLC, Frauenshuh Sweeney, LLC), Kraus-Anderson Construction Company, Doe Affiliates 1-20, and Kraus-Anderson Construction Company, and Third Party v. Berwald Roofing Company, Inc., Third PartyCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 2016
- Rieman v. JoubertCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 1985
- Persgard v. Gordon C. Carroll & Sons, Inc.Court of Appeals of Minnesota · 1985
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.