Legal Opinion

Savchuk v. Randal Rush

Supreme Court of Minnesota

Decided September 10, 1976No. 45556PublishedCited by 15 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Sheran, Chief Justice.

Appeal by defendant, Randal Rush, and garnishee, State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (State Farm), from an order by the district court granting plaintiff’s motion to file and serve a supplemental complaint and denying appellants’ motion to dismiss the complaint. We affirm the decision of the trial court for these reasons:(1) Minn. St. 571.41, subd. 2, was enacted by the legislature *482to permit garnishment of an insurer’s obligation to an insured, even though not due absolutely and without contingency.(2) Rule 4.04(2), Rules of Civil Procedure, which provides in…

2Cases cited29 opinions

  1. Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1950
  2. Hanson v. DencklaSupreme Court of the United States · 1958
  3. Seider v. RothNew York Court of Appeals · 1966
  4. Hunt v. Nevada State BankSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1969
  5. Simpson v. LoehmannNew York Court of Appeals · 1967

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

3Cited by15 opinions

  1. Rush v. SavchukSupreme Court of the United States · 1980
  2. Hoff v. KemptonSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1982
  3. Fraley v. Estate of OedingOhio Supreme Court · 2014
  4. Savchuk v. RushSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1976
  5. Darr v. LongNebraska Supreme Court · 1981

10 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