Legal Opinion

Kloos v. Soo Line Railroad

Supreme Court of Minnesota

Decided December 13, 1968No. 41169PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Peterson, Justice.

Plaintiffs, husband and wife, appeal from the second of two orders denying their post-trial motions for a new trial. We do not reach the merits of the order, however, because we must hold that this order is not appealable.

On November 8, 1966, plaintiffs moved on the minutes of the court for a new trial. The motion was directed to the inadequacy of the jury’s award of damages, the grounds for the motion being that the verdict was not justified by the evidence and that it was the product of the jury’s passion and prejudice. The trial court denied the motion as to the wife and…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Barrett v. SmithSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1931
  2. Bennett v. JohnsonSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1950
  3. Trickel v. CalvinSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1950
  4. Tryggeseth v. NorcrossSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1962
  5. Ross v. Duluth, Missabe & Iron Range Railway Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1937

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Bongard v. BongardCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 1983
  2. STATE, BY POLLUTION CONTROL AGCY. v. US SteelSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1976
  3. Kloos v. Soo Line RailroadSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1970
  4. City of Rochester v. StevensSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1974
  5. State v. ReisewitzSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1977

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

Powered by the Exa API