Legal Opinion

Sheffield v. Clifford

Supreme Court of Minnesota

Decided June 10, 1932No. 28,886PublishedCited by 16 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtOlsen, J.

Plaintiffs appeal from an order denying their motion for a new trial. Blended with the motion was a motion to strike out, amend, add to, and substitute other findings and conclusions.

An order denying a motion to amend, add to, strike out, or substitute other findings of fact or conclusions of law, or both, made by the trial court in a case tried without a jury, is not appealable. When such a motion is blended with a motion for a new trial and is denied, as a whole, the order is appealable as an order denying a motion for a new trial. On such an appeal our rule is that errors may be assigned…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Malchow v. MalchowSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1919
  2. Seitz v. Union Brass & Metal Manufacturing Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1922
  3. Bahr v. Union Fire InsuranceSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1926
  4. Kent v. CostinSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1915
  5. Mann v. LambSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1901

3Cited by16 opinions

  1. Smith v. Benefit Assn. of Railway EmployeesSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1932
  2. Schaedler v. New York Life InsuranceSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1937
  3. Johnson v. JohnsonSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1947
  4. Alsdorf v. SvobodaSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1953
  5. Olson v. Kennedy Trading Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1937

11 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