Legal Opinion

Bruce v. Cohn

Supreme Court of Minnesota

Decided October 14, 1927No. 26,139PublishedCited by 8 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtStone, J.

In this action for personal injuries, a verdict was directed for defendants on the ground of contributory negligence. Solely because he .considered that error, the learned trial judge granted plaintiff’s motion for a new trial by an order of December 9, 1926. On December 11, by an order to show cause why the order granting the new trial should not be vacated, a reargument of the motion for a new trial was in effect ordered. That reargument was set for December 17. The result was an order denying the motion to vacate the order granting a new trial, and the appeal is from that order.…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Provinsal v. PetersonSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1918
  2. United States Roofing & Paint Co. v. MelinSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1924
  3. Chinander v. DelaittreSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1927
  4. Yorek v. PotterSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1926
  5. Pach v. Chippewa Springs CorporationSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1924

3Cited by8 opinions

  1. Halliday v. RaymondNebraska Supreme Court · 1946
  2. Heikkinen v. CashenSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1931
  3. Bennett v. JohnsonSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1950
  4. Olson v. EvertSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1947
  5. Johnson v. KruseSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1939

3 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