Legal Opinion
Pederson v. Eppard
Supreme Court of Minnesota
Decided June 27, 1930No. 27,503PublishedCited by 9 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtDibell, J.
Action for malpractice. Plaintiff moved to strike a certain portion of the answer as sham, frivolous, and irrelevant. The motion was granted. The defendant appeals.
A sham answer is a false answer. To justify striking it its falsity must be clear. 5 Dunnell, Minn. Dig. (2 ed.) § 7667, et seq.
A frivolous answer is one the insufficiency of which is apparent upon bare inspection without argument. It cannot be stricken unless it so appears. 5 Dunnell, Minn. Dig. (2 ed.) § 7668, et seq.
The third ground of the motion, the alleged irrelevancy of the matter stricken, more directly reaches the merits.…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Viita v. FlemingSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1916
- Fisher v. Milwaukee Electric Railway & Light Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1920
- Goss v. GossSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1907
- Retelle v. SullivanWisconsin Supreme Court · 1927
- Hartigan v. DicksonSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1900
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by9 opinions
- Polucha v. LandesNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1930
- Smith v. MannSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1931
- State v. TherrienSupreme Court of Vermont · 2003
- Zinsmaster Baking Co. v. Commander Milling Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1937
- Benesh v. GarvaisSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1945
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.