Eastman v. Leiser Co.
Supreme Court of Minnesota
Action in the district court for St. Louis county to recover $10,760 for malicious prosecution. The ease was tried before Cant, J., who at the close of the testimony granted the motion of defendant Blumenthal to direct a verdict in his favor and denied a similar motion of the other defendants, and a jury which returned a verdict against The Leiser Company and Marie Balfany for $7,737.25. The motion of defendant The Leiser Company for judgment notwithstanding the verdict was…
Read the full summary
Action in the district court for St. Louis county to recover $10,760 for malicious prosecution. The ease was tried before Cant, J., who at the close of the testimony granted the motion of defendant Blumenthal to direct a verdict in his favor and denied a similar motion of the other defendants, and a jury which returned a verdict against The Leiser Company and Marie Balfany for $7,737.25. The motion of defendant The Leiser Company for judgment notwithstanding the verdict was granted, and judgment on the merits in favor of that defendant ordered. From the judgment entered pursuant to the order…
1Opinion of the CourtHallam, J.
Action to recover damages for malicious prosecution. The court directed a verdict in favor of the defendant Blumenthal. The jury returned a verdict against the other defendants for $7,737.25. The court granted a new trial to defendant Marie Balfany, and, on motion in the alternative for judgment or for a new trial, gave judgment for the defendant Leiser Company notwithstanding the verdict. From this judgment plaintiff appeals.
Defendant Leiser Company operates a ladies’ garment store in Duluth. In 1917 defendant Blumenthal was its manager, defendant Marie *98Balfany, a saleslady. On November 22,…
2Cases cited17 opinions
- Slater v. Advance Thresher Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1906
- Stubbs v. MulhollandSupreme Court of Missouri · 1902
- Michael v. MatsonSupreme Court of Kansas · 1909
- Smith v. MunchSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1896
- Burton v. St. Paul, Minneapolis & Manitoba Railway Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1885
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by18 opinions
- Cherne Industrial, Inc. v. Grounds & Associates, Inc.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1979
- Pera v. Kroger Co.Tennessee Supreme Court · 1984
- Zenik v. O'BRIENSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1951
- First Nat. Bank of Omaha v. Marquette Nat. BankDistrict Court, D. Minnesota · 1979
- Allen v. Osco Drug, Inc.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1978
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.