Legal Opinion

Custom Farm Services, Inc. v. Collins

Supreme Court of Minnesota

Decided January 9, 1976No. 45583PublishedCited by 26 opinions

1Per curiam

Defendants appealed pro se from a judgment entered pursuant to a jury verdict. Defendants have not supplied an appendix as required by Rule 130.01, Rules of Civil Appellate Procedure, nor have they reproduced the transcript of the district court proceeding, aside from the text of the court’s charge to the jury, as required by Rule 110.02, Rules of Civil Appellate Procedure.

Defendants allege several errors which they argue entitled them to a new trial. Because of the absence of a transcript of the district court proceedings, we cannot consider two of these — sufficiency of the evidence, and…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Schwartz v. Minneapolis Suburban Bus Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1960
  2. Weber v. Stokely-Van Camp, Inc.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1966
  3. Hurlburt v. LeachmanSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1914
  4. Noltimier v. NoltimierSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1968
  5. Wadena v. BushSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1975

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

3Cited by26 opinions

  1. State v. TaylorSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2002
  2. Hoagland v. StateSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1994
  3. Bowman v. Pamida, Inc.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1977
  4. Godbout v. NortonSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1977
  5. Oelschlager v. MagnusonCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 1995

21 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