DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted
13,665—(23); Nos. 13,666-(24); Nos. 13,667—(25); Nos. 13,66 Precedential Affirmed. Processed

Hoerr v. Thompson

Minnesota Supreme Court · Filed October 9, 1903 · 96 N.W. 1131

The holding in the court’s own words

We therefore hold, following that case, that the judgment in each of these cases must be affirmed.
View full opinion text ↓

Quoted verbatim from the opinion — no paraphrase, nothing generated. Not yet human-reviewed. How we find the holding.

Authorities cited

Identified automatically; this list may not be exhaustive.

Opinion text

PER CURIAM. In each of the foregoing cases there was an appeal from.a judgment of the district court — either of the county of Big -Stone or.' that of Traverse county — and each case was submitted to.this court upon the record herein and the briefs in the case of O'Connor v. Gertgens, *294 85 Minn. 481 , 89 N. W. 866 . The questions presented for our decision in these cases are substantially the same as those decided in the case cited. We therefore hold, following that case, that the judgment in each of these cases must be affirmed. Ret final judgment herein be so entered, but without statutory costs. Judgments affirmed.