Legal Opinion

Gau v. J. Borgerding & Co.

Supreme Court of Minnesota

Decided July 6, 1928No. 26,706PublishedCited by 6 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Tayloe, C.

Plaintiff recovered a verdict of $25,000 for injuries sustained in an automobile collision on a public highway. Defendants made a motion for judgment non obstante or for a new trial. The court denied the motion for judgment, but granted the motion for a new trial unless plaintiff filed a written consent to reduce the verdict to the sum of $23,500, in which event the motion for a new trial was also denied. Plaintiff filed the written consent. Defendants appealed.

Defendants complain of two statements in the charge to the jury. They were not of much importance and when taken in…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Carson v. TurrishSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1918
  2. Carter v. Duluth Yellow Cab Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1927
  3. Lowe v. Armour Packing Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1921
  4. L'Herault v. City of MinneapolisSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1897
  5. Olson v. Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1905

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. Cameron v. EvansSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1954
  2. Carpenter v. NelsonSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1960
  3. Dornberg v. St. Paul City Railway Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1958
  4. Derrick v. St. Paul City Railway Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1958
  5. Penteluk v. StarkSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1955

1 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