State ex rel. Long v. Cox
Supreme Court of Minnesota
Mandamus, directed to the judge of the 9th judicial dis- „ triet.
1Opinion of the CourtGxleillan, C. J.
After a verdict for plaintiff in the cause below, in which tbe relators were defendants, tbe defendants made a statement of the case, and the parties stipulated that *215it was correct. The defendants thereupon gave notice of a. motion to have the stipulated ease certified and approved by the judge who tried the case, and of a motion at the same-time for a new trial, upon the ease as certified and approved. These motions appear to have been heard, and the motion for a new trial denied. The motion for the certifying of the case was not then decided, but was subsequently renewed and denied. It…
2Cited by7 opinions
- Sherman v. St. Paul, Minneapolis & Manitoba Railway Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1883
- State v. RonkSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1904
- Richardson v. RogersSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1887
- Rhodes v. Board of Public WorksColorado Court of Appeals · 1897
- State ex rel. Schmitt v. MacdonaldSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1882
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.