Bowman v. Pamida, Inc.
Supreme Court of Minnesota
1Opinion of the Court
ROGOSHESKE, Justice.
The dispositive question raised by plaintiffs on appeal is whether the trial court lacked jurisdiction under Rule 59.03, Rules of Civil Procedure, to hear and rule upon defendants’ post-trial motion for a new trial on damages, or in the alternative a remitti-tur, where notice of the motion was served on plaintiffs 25 days after service of notice on defendants by plaintiffs of the filing of the court order directing entry of judgment. We hold that the court lacked jurisdiction and accordingly declare the post-trial order granting an unconditional remitti-tur a nullity.
This…
2Cases cited16 opinions
- Edward T. Hulson and Walter A. Christensen v. The Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railway Company, a CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1961
- John E. Smith's Sons Company v. Lattimer Foundry & MacHine CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1956
- Joan Cline v. Sheriff Ted Hoogland and His Wife, Gertrude HooglandCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1975
- Krueger v. KnutsonSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1961
- Lundeen v. RenteriaSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1974
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by20 opinions
- Bryan D. Pitts v. Electro-Static Finishing, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1979
- Runia v. Marguth Agency, Inc.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1989
- Rieman v. JoubertSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1985
- Differt v. RendahlSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1981
- Marriage of Sudheimer v. SudheimerCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 1985
15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.