Legal Opinion

Christopherson v. Custom Laundry Co.

Supreme Court of Minnesota

Decided February 7, 1930No. 27,665PublishedCited by 8 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Olsen, C.

Defendant appeals from an order denying its alternative motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict or, if that be denied, then for a new trial.

The action is one to recover damages for personal injuries, and plaintiff recovered a verdict. The appeal presents the. usual two questions: (1) whether the evidence justifies the verdict; (2) whether there were reversible errors on the trial, excepted to and assigned as errors by the defendant so as to be available here.

Plaintiff’s cause of action is- based upon defendant’s failure to keep a toilet in its laundry in proper condition, as…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Dohm v. R. N. Cardozo BrotherSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1925
  2. Schaar v. ConforthSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1915
  3. Farrell v. G. O. Miller Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1920
  4. Hillstrom v. Mannheimer Bros.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1920
  5. Frederick v. McRaeSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1923

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

3Cited by8 opinions

  1. Morris v. Dame'sSupreme Court of Virginia · 1933
  2. Mechler v. McMahonSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1931
  3. Larson v. MontpetitSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1966
  4. Kramer v. KramerSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1968
  5. Moquin v. Minneapolis, St. Paul & Sault Ste. Marie Railway Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1930

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