Dahlquist v. Minneapolis & St. Louis Railway Co.
Supreme Court of Minnesota
1Opinion of the Court
Loring, Chief Justice.
In the preceding opinion, we held that defendant was not entitled to judgment notwithstanding the verdict because of failure to move for a directed verdict at the close of all the testimony. M. S. A. 605.06. Dahlquist v. M. & St. L. Ry. Co. 230 Minn. 201, 41 N. W. (2d) 586. Since that decision was filed, the parties have presented a stipulation that the case be remanded to the trial court for correction of the settled case according to the facts. That was done, and the settled case returned to this court, showing that a motion to direct a verdict for defendant was, in…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Anderson v. Great Northern Railway Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1920
- Coonley v. LowdenSupreme Court of Iowa · 1944
- Carlson v. Chicago & Northwestern Railway Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1905
- Turner v. Minneapolis, St. Paul & Sault Ste. Marie Railway Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1925
- Jenkins v. Minneapolis & St. Louis RailroadSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1914
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by13 opinions
- Rogge v. Great Northern Railway Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1951
- Schubitzke v. Minneapolis, St. Paul & Sault Ste. Marie RailroadSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1955
- Tiedeman v. Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul And Pacific Railroad CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1975
- Jorgenson v. Minneapolis, St. Paul & Sault Ste. Marie Railway Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1950
- Hicks v. Northern Pacific Railway Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1953
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.