Legal Opinion · Dissent

Groves v. John Wunder Co.

Supreme Court of Minnesota

Decided April 21, 1939No. 31,916PublishedCited by 1 opinion

1Dissent

The situation here is unfortunate to the litigants as well as to this court in that because of the absence of two of the justices the prevailing opinion represents but a minority of its full membership. But the court as such must go on transacting its business. The general rule is that a "majority of the members of a court is a quorum sufficient for the transaction of business and the decision of cases." Hence a majority of the quorum necessarily must prevail. 14 Am. Jur., Courts, §§ 57, 58; 15 C.J. pp. 965, 966, [§ 362] D; and see Hunt v. Ward,193 Minn. 168, 258 N.W. 145, 259 N.W. 12.

There…

2Cases cited31 opinions

  1. Jacob & Youngs, Inc. v. KentNew York Court of Appeals · 1921
  2. Morgan v. GambleSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1911
  3. Guardian Trust Co. v. BrothersCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1933
  4. Chamberlain v. . ParkerNew York Court of Appeals · 1871
  5. Sassen v. HaegleSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1914

26 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. Groves v. John Wunder Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1939

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

Powered by the Exa API