Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Cappis v. Wiedemann, 90 N.W. 368.

28 citing documents.

Sanders v. Boulevard Del., Inc. 152 N.W.2d 132 Minn. 1967
Sanders v. Boulevard Del., Inc. 152 N.W.2d 132 Minn. 1967
2 Murray v. Wilson, 227 Minn. 365 , 35 N. W. (2d) 521 ; Cappis v. Wiedemann, 86 Minn. 156 , ; Olson v. Berg, 87 Minn. 277 , .
Ryan v. Griffin 62 N.W.2d 504 Minn. 1954
Ryan v. Griffin 62 N.W.2d 504 Minn. 1954
9 Stewart v. Davenport, 23 Minn. 346 ; Grant v. Wagner, 87 Minn. 297 , ; Cappis v. Wiedemann, 86 Minn. 156 , ; 5 Dunnell, Dig.
Murray v. Wilson 35 N.W.2d 521 Minn. 1949
Murray v. Wilson 35 N.W.2d 521 Minn. 1949
Cappis v. Wiedemann, 86 Minn. 156 , ; Olson v. Berg, 87 Minn. 277 , .
Northern Drug Co. v. Abbett 284 N.W. 881 Minn. 1939
Northern Drug Co. v. Abbett 284 N.W. 881 Minn. 1939
Cummings v. Baars, 36 Minn. 350 , ; Cappis v. Wiedemann, 86 Minn. 156 , ; Oien v. St.
Taylor v. Chicago Great Western Railroad 206 N.W. 404 Minn. 1925
Taylor v. Chicago Great Western Railroad 206 N.W. 404 Minn. 1925
Cappis v. Wiedemann, 86 Minn. 156 , ; Petruschke v. Kamerer, 131 Minn. 320 , 155 N. *268 W. 205; Kelly v. McKeown, 139 Minn. 285 , ; Peterson v. Township of Manchester, 162 Minn. 486 , .
Kelly v. McKeown 166 N.W. 329 Minn. 1918
Kelly v. McKeown 166 N.W. 329 Minn. 1918
Cappis v. Wiedemann, 86 Minn. 156 , ; Olson v. Berg, 87 Minn. 277 , ; Parker v. Pine Tree Lumber Co. 89 Minn. 500 , ; Conan v. City of Ely, 91 Minn. 127 , .
Petruschke v. Kamerer 155 N.W. 205 Minn. 1915
Petruschke v. Kamerer 155 N.W. 205 Minn. 1915
Nor may we consider errors in any ruling on the reception of testimony, unless an exception was taken at the time, since none are taken by the motion for a new trial (Cappis v. Wiedemann, 86 Minn. 156 , ), and cases cited in 2 Dunnell, Minn. Dig.
Ogren v. City of Minneapolis 141 N.W. 120 Minn. 1913
Ogren v. City of Minneapolis 141 N.W. 120 Minn. 1913
We reiterate the rule, stated in Cappis v. Wiedemann, 86 Minn. 156 , , and in very many cases following it, that under Laws 1901, p. 121, c. 113, now R. L. 1905, § 4200, an assignment of error, based upon the charge, is not considered, unless an exception is taken at the trial, or there is a specification of error in the motion for a new trial.
Nye v. Kahlow 107 N.W. 733 Minn. 1906
Nye v. Kahlow 107 N.W. 733 Minn. 1906
Cappis v. Wiedemann, 86 Minn. 156 , ; Parker v. Pine Tree Lumber Co., 89 Minn. 500 , ; Conan v. City of Ely, 91 Minn. 127 , .
Clark v. Thompson 101 N.W. 1133 Minn. 1904
Clark v. Thompson 101 N.W. 1133 Minn. 1904
Following Cappis v. Wiedemann, 86 Minn. 156 , , and Olson v. Berg, 87 Minn. 277 , , we are upon this point limited to a consideration of the question whether the evidence is sufficient to sustain the verdict.
Cady v. Cady 97 N.W. 580 Minn. 1903
Cady v. Cady 97 N.W. 580 Minn. 1903
Cappis v. Wiedemann, 86 Minn. 156 , ; Olson v. Berg, 87 Minn. 277 , .
Conan v. City of Ely 97 N.W. 737 Minn. 1903
Conan v. City of Ely 97 N.W. 737 Minn. 1903
Cappis v. Wiedemann, 86 Minn. 156 , ; Olson v. Berg, 87 Minn. 277 , .
Parker v. Pine Tree Lumber Co. 95 N.W. 323 Minn. 1903
Parker v. Pine Tree Lumber Co. 95 N.W. 323 Minn. 1903
Cappis v. Wiedemann, 86 Minn. 156 , .
Olson v. Berg 91 N.W. 1103 Minn. 1902
Olson v. Berg 91 N.W. 1103 Minn. 1902
We construed Laws 1901, c. 113, dispensing with the necessity of taking exceptions on the trial of an action, in Cappis v. Wiedemann, 86 Minn. 156 , , where the correct practice was pointed out: In cases where exceptions are taken at the trial, parties may proceed as under the old practice, specifying the ground of the motion for the new trial generally, but rulings not excepted to can be taken advantage of only by proceeding in accordance with the