Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Nash v. Kirschoff, 201 N.W. 617.

36 citing documents.

Montgomery Ward & Co., Inc. v. County of Hennepin 482 N.W.2d 785 Minn. 1992
Montgomery Ward & Co., Inc. v. County of Hennepin 482 N.W.2d 785 Minn. 1992
See Nash v. Kirschoff, 161 Minn. 409, 411 , 201 N.W.
Marriage of Salstrom v. Salstrom 404 N.W.2d 848 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Marriage of Salstrom v. Salstrom 404 N.W.2d 848 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
See Nash v. Kirschoff, 161 Minn. 409, 412 , 201 N.W.
Schulte v. CH PETERSON CONSTRUCTION COMPANY 153 N.W.2d 130 Minn. 1967
Schulte v. CH PETERSON CONSTRUCTION COMPANY 153 N.W.2d 130 Minn. 1967
Co. v. Clarkson Securities Co. 205 Minn. 517 , ; Nash v. Kirschoff, 161 Minn. 409 , .
Town of Burnsville v. City of Bloomington 115 N.W.2d 923 Minn. 1962
Town of Burnsville v. City of Bloomington 115 N.W.2d 923 Minn. 1962
Marty v. Nordby, 201 Minn. 469 , ; Nash v. Kirschoff, 161 Minn. 409 , .
Lehman v. Hansord Pontiac Co. Inc. 74 N.W.2d 305 Minn. 1955
Lehman v. Hansord Pontiac Co. Inc. 74 N.W.2d 305 Minn. 1955
Louis F. Dow Co. v. Bittner, 185 Minn. 499 , ; Breen v. Cameron, 132 Minn. 357 , ; Nash v. Kirschoff, 161 Minn. 409 , .
Inland Products Corp. v. Donovan Inc. 62 N.W.2d 211 Minn. 1953
Inland Products Corp. v. Donovan Inc. 62 N.W.2d 211 Minn. 1953
See, Nash v. Kirschoff, 161 Minn. 409 , ; Halvorson v. Halvorson, 133 Minn. 78 , ; State ex rel.
Lee v. Zaske 6 N.W.2d 793 Minn. 1942
Lee v. Zaske 6 N.W.2d 793 Minn. 1942
Nash v. Kirschoff, 161 Minn. 409 , .
Julius v. Lenz 3 N.W.2d 10 Minn. 1942
Julius v. Lenz 3 N.W.2d 10 Minn. 1942
So, as was said in Nash v. Kirschoff, 161 Minn. 409, 410 , : “At the outset, repeating what has often been said before, we call attention to the rule that an order denying a motion to amend findings is not appealable, whether it is accompanied by a motion for a new trial or not.” (Citing cases.)
State & Railroad & Warehouse Commission v. Rock Island Motor Transit Co. 295 N.W. 519 Minn. 1940
State and R. R. W. H. Comm. v. R.I. M. T. Co. 295 N.W. 519 Minn. 1940
State and R. R. W. H. Comm. v. R.I. M. T. Co. 295 N.W. 519 Minn. 1940
Nash v. Kirschoff, 161 Minn. 409 , 201 N.W.
State & Railroad & Warehouse Commission v. Rock Island Motor Transit Co. 295 N.W. 519 Minn. 1940
Nash v. Kirschoff, 161 Minn. 409 , .
Marty v. Nordby 276 N.W. 739 Minn. 1937
Marty v. Nordby 276 N.W. 739 Minn. 1937
Co. 201 Minn. 327 , ; Nash v. Kirschoff, 161 Minn. 409 , ; Worrlein v. Maier, 177 Minn. 474 , ; Louis F. Dow Co. v. Bittner, 185 Minn. 499 , .
Louis F. Dow Co. v. Bittner 241 N.W. 569 Minn. 1932
Louis F. Dow Co. v. Bittner 241 N.W. 569 Minn. 1932
*500 In Nash v. Kirschoff, 161 Minn. 409, 410 , , the rule was restated by Judge Lees with the express purpose of removing “misapprehension * * * as to the appealability of orders made in response to motions for amended findings.” The law was stated as we have stated it above.
Hoyt v. Kittson County State Bank 230 N.W. 269 Minn. 1930
Hoyt v. Kittson County State Bank 230 N.W. 269 Minn. 1930
Nash v. Kirschoff, 161 Minn. 409 , , and cases cited; City of Minneapolis v. Minneapolis Ry.
Standard Salt & Cement Co. v. Commercial Casualty Insurance 213 N.W. 543 Minn. 1927
Standard Salt & Cement Co. v. Commercial Casualty Insurance 213 N.W. 543 Minn. 1927
Co. v. Duclos, 138 Minn. 20 , ; Nash v. Kirschoff, 161 Minn. 409 , .
Nash v. Kirschoff 208 N.W. 193 Minn. 1926
Nash v. Kirschoff 208 N.W. 193 Minn. 1926
157 Minn. 418 , ; 161 Minn. 409 , .
State Ex Rel. Stone v. Probst 206 N.W. 642 Minn. 1925
State Ex Rel. Stone v. Probst 206 N.W. 642 Minn. 1925
Nash v. Kirschoff, 161 Minn. 409 , .
Farmers State Bank of Christine v. Merchants & Manufacturers State Bank 204 N.W. 965 Minn. 1925
Farmers State Bank of Christine v. Merchants & Manufacturers State Bank 204 N.W. 965 Minn. 1925
Nash v. Kirschoff, 161 Minn. 409 , , and cases cited.
Taylor v. Chicago Great Western Railroad 203 N.W. 434 Minn. 1925
Taylor v. Chicago Great Western Railroad 203 N.W. 434 Minn. 1925
Co. 86 Minn. 509 , ; Nikannis Co. v. City of Duluth, 108 Minn. 83 , ; Desaman v. Butler Bros. 118 Minn. 198 , ; Rees v. Nash, 142 Minn. 260 , ; Nash v. Kirchoff, 161 Minn. 409 , .