Legal Opinion

Miller v. County of Steele

Supreme Court of Minnesota

Decided February 13, 1925No. 24,261PublishedCited by 6 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtHolt, J.

Plaintiff recovered a verdict for a balance due upon a drainage contract. Defendant’s motion for a new trial was granted, and plaintiff appeals.

At the outset we are met with the question whether the order is appealable. Subdivision 4, § 8001, GL S. 1918, provides “that when an order granting a new trial is based exclusively upon errors occurring at the trial and it is so expressly stated in the order or memorandum of the trial court, an appeal therefrom may be taken but in such case only.” The order itself does not state why a new trial was granted. However, attached thereto is a memorandum…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Pust v. HoltzSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1916
  2. Merz v. County of WrightSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1911
  3. State ex rel. Haney v. ClarkeSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1910
  4. St. Paul Swimming Club v. First State BankSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1921
  5. Friederick v. County of RedwoodSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1921

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. Weatherhead v. BurauSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1952
  2. Kelsey v. Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific RailroadSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1962
  3. Citizens St. Bank of St. Paul v. WadeSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1925
  4. Kramer v. BennettSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1928
  5. Seorum v. MarudasSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1944

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