Legal Opinion · Dissent

Gelin v. Hollister

Supreme Court of Minnesota

Decided October 4, 1946No. 34,147PublishedCited by 1 opinion

1Dissent

The provisions of L. 1941, c. 448, left but two possible remedies for judicial error as against the orders and judgments to which the statute applied. One was an appeal to this court; the other was, of course, a motion to vacate or modify the order or judgment presented to the trial court within the time for appeal. Obviously, it was the legislative purpose so to limit the time and to immunize such order and judgments from attack thereafter for judicial error in order to expedite the administration of justice in this class of cases. The legislature had the undoubted right so to legislate. It…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Herrlich v. McDonaldCalifornia Supreme Court · 1889
  2. Gallagher v. Irish-American BankSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1900
  3. Conklin v. JohnsonSupreme Court of Iowa · 1872
  4. Nornborg v. LarsonSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1897

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. Gelin v. HollisterSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1946

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API