Podgorski v. Kerwin
Supreme Court of Minnesota
Action in tbe district court for Ramsey county to recover for personal injuries. Verdict for $7,000. From an order Haupt, J., granting defendant’s motion for a new trial unless plaintiff consented to a reduetion of tbe verdict to $5,000, defendant appealed.
1Opinion of the Court
Pee Curiam.
This is an action for personal injuries. There was a verdict fox the plaintiff. A motion for a new trial upon the grounds of insufficiency of evidence and of excessive damages, as well as upon other grounds, was denied. The order denying the motion was affirmed on appeal.1 On the going down of the remittitur the defendant made a motion for a new trial upon the ground of newly discovered evidence. The proposed- new evidence bore upon the amount of damages only, and, if it was of the character suggested in the supporting affidavits, tended to show that there had been a better…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Podgorski v. KerwinSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1919
- Floody v. Great Northern Railway Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1907
- Bremer v. Minneapolis, St. Paul & Sault Ste. Marie Railway Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1905
- Ewing v. StickneySupreme Court of Minnesota · 1909
- Darnell v. KrouseU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern Pennsylvania · 1905
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by8 opinions
- Genzel v. HalvorsonSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1957
- Olson v. ChristiansenSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1950
- Runia v. Marguth Agency, Inc.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1989
- Daly v. McFarlandSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2012
- Alter v. ShearwoodOhio Supreme Court · 1926
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.