Legal Opinion

Seerup v. Swanson

Supreme Court of Minnesota

Decided February 7, 1947No. 34,302PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Per curiam

Appellant has made no pretense whatever of complying with Rule VIII (2) of this court, requiring that the printed record shall contain (212 Minn, xli) “such abridgement of the settled case as will clearly and fully present the questions arising on the appeal.” No portion of the settled case, by way of abridgement or otherwise, is presented. In fact, the printed record is barren of the material necessary for an understanding of the issues. We have here not an error in judgment as to what should be printed, but a complete failure to make any effort to provide the court with an abridgement of…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Iowa City v. GlassmanSupreme Court of Iowa · 1912
  2. Begin v. Liederbach Bus Co. Inc.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1926
  3. Kuehl v. MeansSupreme Court of Iowa · 1928

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Olson v. MullenSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1955
  2. Noltimier v. NoltimierSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1968
  3. Truesdale v. FriedmanSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1964
  4. Webster v. SchwartzSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1962
  5. Houge v. HougeSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1968

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

Powered by the Exa API