Legal Opinion

State v. Longyear Holding Co.

Supreme Court of Minnesota

Decided December 24, 1948No. 34,772PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Per curiam

The assignments of error raise the identical questions presented on the former appeal from an order dénying defendants’ motion for a new trial. State v. Longyear Holding Co. 224 Minn. 451, 29 N. W. (2d) 657. Where an order denying a new trial has been affirmed on appeal, all questions that might have been raised therein are set at rest and cannot be raised on a subsequent appeal from the judgment. School Dist. No. 1 v. Aiton, 175 Minn. 346, 348, 221 N. W. 424, 425; Skog v. Pomush, 221 Minn. 11, 20 N. W. (2d) 530; 1 Dunnell, Dig. & Supp. § 398.

Hence, the decision on the former appeal is…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. State v. Longyear Holding Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1947
  2. School District No. 1, Itasca County v. AitonSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1928
  3. Skog v. PomushSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1945

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Stottlemyer v. KlineCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1969
  2. Wurdemann v. HjelmSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1961
  3. State v. AdamsSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1957
  4. State v. AdamsSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1957

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

Powered by the Exa API