Legal Opinion
Opperud v. Byram
Supreme Court of Minnesota
Decided January 13, 1928No. 26,421PublishedCited by 5 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Olsen, C.
Plaintiff recovered a verdict. On motion of defendants for judgment notwithstanding the verdict or for a new trial, the court granted judgment for defendants, and plaintiff appeals from the judgment entered.
The question presented is whether or not there was any evidence reasonably tending to prove negligence on the part of the defendants.
Judgment notwithstanding the verdict will not be granted if there is any evidence reasonably tending to support the verdict. Cruikshank v. St. Paul F. & M. Ins. Co. 75 Minn. 266, 77 N. W. 958; Bragg v. C. M. & St. P. Ry. Co. 81 Minn. 130, 83 N. W.…
2Cases cited21 opinions
- Cruikshank v. St. Paul Fire & Marine InsuranceSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1899
- Bragg v. Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1900
- Howard v. FarrSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1911
- Nadeau v. Maryland Casualty Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1927
- Swenson v. ErlandsonSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1902
16 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- Cofran v. SwanmanSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1947
- Commercial Union Insurance Co. Ltd. v. ConnollySupreme Court of Minnesota · 1931
- First National Bank v. FoxSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1934
- Stritzke v. Chicago Great Western RailroadSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1933
- Wolf v. Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul & Pacific RailroadSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1930