Legal Opinion

Chapman v. Dorsey

Supreme Court of Minnesota

Decided February 17, 1950No. Nos. 35,119, 35,126PublishedCited by 69 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Matson, Justice.

Defendant, by means of both appeal and writ of certiorari, seeks a review of an order of the trial court denying his motion for the joinder of additional parties defendant pursuant to M. S. A. 540.16. Plaintiff’s motion to dismiss the appeal and quash the writ presents the following issues:(1) Is an order denying a motion — made pursuant to § 540.16, as amended by L. 1947, c. 152 — to bring in additional parties defendant appealable?(2) If such order is not appealable, may it be reviewed upon writ of certiorari?

Plaintiff, a minor, by her father and natural guardian, brought…

2Cases cited30 opinions

  1. McFarlan v. Fowler Bank City Trust Co.Indiana Supreme Court · 1938
  2. Hensley v. McDowell Furniture Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1913
  3. Schuster v. SchusterSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1901
  4. State Ex Rel. Peterson v. BentleySupreme Court of Minnesota · 1947
  5. In Re Condemnation of Lands Owned by LuhrsSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1945

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

3Cited by69 opinions

  1. Hunt v. Nevada State BankSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1969
  2. Best v. YerkesSupreme Court of Iowa · 1956
  3. Chapman v. DorseySupreme Court of Minnesota · 1950
  4. In Re GlaxoSmithKline PlcSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2005
  5. Gustafson v. JohnsonSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1952

64 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