Legal Opinion

Ewer v. Coppe

Supreme Court of Minnesota

Decided January 22, 1937No. 31,051PublishedCited by 18 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Loring, Justice.

After verdicts in favor of plaintiffs in suits for personal injuries arising out of a collision between an automobile owned by the defendants Coppe and Shapiro and driven by defendant Dineen and one in which the plaintiffs were riding, the defendants Coppe and Shapiro come here on appeal from an order denying their alternative motion for judgment or a new trial.

The facts are not in dispute. Defendants Coppe and Shapiro are dealers in Studebaker automobiles in Rochester and do business under the name of the Rochester Auto Market. Dineen was a salesman employed by them. On…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. O'Leary v. WangensteenSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1928
  2. Abbey v. Northern States Power Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1937
  3. Lausche v. Denison-Harding Chevrolet Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1932
  4. Messenbring, Sr. v. BlackwoodSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1927
  5. Wenell v. ShapiroSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1935

3Cited by18 opinions

  1. Bradley v. S. L. Savidge, Inc.Washington Supreme Court · 1942
  2. Henrietta v. EvansCalifornia Supreme Court · 1938
  3. Carlson v. FredsallSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1949
  4. Eicher v. Universal UnderwritersSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1957
  5. Cormican v. Anchor Casualty Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1957

13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API