Legal Opinion
Hildegarde, Inc. v. Wright
Supreme Court of Minnesota
Decided April 29, 1955No. 36,443PublishedCited by 30 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Christianson, Justice.
This is an action for conversion of restaurant fixtures. Plaintiff appeals from a judgment for defendants entered after answers by the jury to special interrogatories submitted by the trial court in accordance with the special verdict procedure authorized by Rule 49.01 of Rules of Civil Procedure. There was no motion for a new trial.
The defendant J. H. & W. Corporation is a Minnesota corporation which owns business property in St. Louis Park, Minnesota. In all of the events which are important here the J. H. & W. Corporation was represented by defendant Ansel J. Wright,…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Bradley v. RoeNew York Court of Appeals · 1940
- Baer v. SlaterMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1927
- Brandenburg v. Northwestern Jobbers Credit BureauSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1915
- Obodov v. FosterSupreme Court of Colorado · 1939
- Merz v. CroxenSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1907
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by30 opinions
- Shea v. FridleyDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1956
- Christensen v. Milbank Insurance Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 2003
- Thomas B. Olson & Associates, P.A. v. Leffert, Jay & Polglaze, P.A.Court of Appeals of Minnesota · 2008
- Hornblower & Weeks-Hemphill Noyes v. LazereSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1974
- TCI Business Capital, Inc. v. Five Star American Die Casting, LLC, Brian T. FlynnCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 2017
25 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.