Legal Opinion · Dissent

Brulla v. Cassady

Supreme Court of Minnesota

Decided December 8, 1939No. 32,099Published

1Dissent

Gallagher, Chief Justice and Peterson, Justice

(dissenting).

While we feel that a new trial of this case should be granted, we do not believe that the record justifies ordering judgment notwithstanding the verdict. That plaintiff was seriously injured in some manner is conceded. If he Avas injured in the manner testified to by him, he should recover. As to whether he was injured in that manner or by falling off a barn, as claimed by defendants, was a fact question for the jury. After seeing the witnesses and hearing their testimony, the jury resolved the fact question in plaintiff’s favor and…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Bragg v. Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1900
  2. Trovatten v. HansonSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1927
  3. Jones v. Minneapolis & St. Louis RailroadSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1904
  4. Hess v. Great Northern Railway Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1906
  5. Berghuis v. SchultzSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1912

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