DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Explore

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Lundblad v. Erickson, 230 N.W. 473.

28 citing documents.

  • Backman v. Fitch 137 N.W.2d 574 Minn. 1965
  • Backman v. Fitch 137 N.W.2d 574 Minn. 1965
    Lundblad v. Erickson, 180 Minn. 185 , ; Fortier v. Newman, 248 Minn. 69 , 78 N. W. (2d) 382 ; Propper v. Chicago, R. I. & P. R. Co. 237 Minn. 386 , 54 N. W. (2d) 840 ; Fussner v. Andert, 261 Minn. 347, 361 , 113 N. W. (2d) 355, 364 ; Koenigs v. Werner, 263 Minn. 80 , 116 N. W. (2d) 73 .
  • Laramie Motors, Inc. v. Larson 92 N.W.2d 803 Minn. 1958
  • Laramie Motors, Inc. v. Larson 92 N.W.2d 803 Minn. 1958
    4 Such an order was formerly declared by dictum to be an appealable order in Lundblad v. Erickson, 180 Minn. 185 , , but this dictum of the Lundblad case was clearly repudiated by Roelofs v. Baber, 194 Minn 166, , and has not been followed since, notwithstanding *486 the dictum in Zywiec v. City of South St.
  • Fortier v. Newman 78 N.W.2d 382 Minn. 1956
  • Fortier v. Newman 78 N.W.2d 382 Minn. 1956
    Lundblad v. Erickson, 180 Minn. 185 , .
  • Patton v. Minneapolis Street Railway Co. 71 N.W.2d 861 Minn. 1955
  • Patton v. Minneapolis Street Railway Co. 71 N.W.2d 861 Minn. 1955
    Co. 139 Minn. 258 , ; Marlow v. Streefland, 156 Minn. 450 , ; Lundblad v. Erickson, 180 Minn. 185 , ; Storey v. Weinberg, 226 Minn. 48 , 31 N. W. (2d) 912 ; Zywiec v. City of South St.
  • LeMay v. Minneapolis Street Railway Co. 71 N.W.2d 826 Minn. 1955
  • LeMay v. Minneapolis Street Railway Co. 71 N.W.2d 826 Minn. 1955
    Co. 71 Minn. 45 , ; Arnoldy v. Northwestern State Bank, 142 Minn. 449 , ; Peterson v. Township of Manchester, 162 Minn. 486 , ; Lundblad v. Erickson, 180 Minn. 185 , *198 ; Winning v. Timm, 210 Minn. 270 , ; Wendelsdorf v. County of Martin, 220 Minn. 614 , 20 N. W. (2d) 528 .
  • Thayer v. Duffy 63 N.W.2d 28 Minn. 1953
  • Thayer v. Duffy 63 N.W.2d 28 Minn. 1953
    W. T. Rawleigh Co. v. Shogren, 192 Minn. 483 , ; Lundblad v. Erickson, 180 Minn. 185 , ; Zywiec v. City of South St.
  • Propper v. Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railroad 54 N.W.2d 840 Minn. 1952
  • Propper v. Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railroad 54 N.W.2d 840 Minn. 1952
    It has been the practice of this court to order a new trial upon the question of damages only (see, Lundblad v. Erickson, 180 Minn. 185 , ; Appleby v. Payne, 149 Minn. 77 , ), at least where the issue of defendant’s liability has been fairly and fully tried in the district court.
  • LaCombe v. Minneapolis Street Railway Co. 51 N.W.2d 836 Minn. 1952
  • LaCombe v. Minneapolis Street Railway Co. 51 N.W.2d 836 Minn. 1952
    Lundblad v. Erickson, 180 Minn. 185 , ; May Department Stores Co. v. Bell, 61 F. (2d) 830, 842, 843; 16 Minn. L. Rev. 193 .
  • Zywiec v. City of South St. Paul 47 N.W.2d 465 Minn. 1951
  • Zywiec v. City of South St. Paul 47 N.W.2d 465 Minn. 1951
    Lundblad v. Erickson, 180 Minn. 185 , ; Morton v. Griggs, Cooper & Co. 162 Minn. 436 , .
  • Seagram-Distillers Corp. v. Lang 41 N.W.2d 429 Minn. 1950
  • Seagram-Distillers Corp. v. Lang 41 N.W.2d 429 Minn. 1950
    Plaintiff relies upon numerous cases involving appeals taken after judgment from orders denying or granting a motion for a new trial, such as In re Estate of Hore, 220 Minn. 365 , 19 N. W. (2d) 778 , 160 A. L. R. 1064; Lundblad v. Erickson, 180 Minn. 185 , ; and Harcum v. Benson, 135 Minn. 23 , .
  • Winning v. Timm 297 N.W. 739 Minn. 1941
  • Winning v. Timm 297 N.W. 739 Minn. 1941
    §§ 388, 388a; Le Mieux v. Cosgrove, 155 Minn. 353 , ; Peterson v. Township of Manchester, 162 Minn. 486 , ; Lundblad v. Erickson, 180 Minn. 185 , ; Duluth, Missabe & Northern Ry.
  • Marty v. Nordby 276 N.W. 739 Minn. 1937
  • Marty v. Nordby 276 N.W. 739 Minn. 1937
    Reliance is placed upon Lundblad v. Erickson, 180 Minn. 185 , .
  • W. T. Rawleigh Co. v. Shogren 257 N.W. 102 Minn. 1934
  • W. T. Rawleigh Co. v. Shogren 257 N.W. 102 Minn. 1934
    There Avas little, if any, conflict in the evidence, but the inferences or conclusions drawn from it might vary in different minds.” Matters that may be reviewed on appeal from a judgment are tersely and adequately stated in Lundblad v. Erickson, 180 Minn. 185 , .
  • In Re Estate of Firle 253 N.W. 889 Minn. 1934
  • In Re Estate of Firle 253 N.W. 889 Minn. 1934
    Co. 71 Minn. 45 , ; Baxter v. Coughlin, 80 Minn. 322 , ; State v. O’Brien, 83 Minn. 6 , ; Chadbourne v. Reed, 83 Minn. 447 , ; Bilsborrow v. Pierce, 112 Minn. 336 , ; Harcum v. Benson, 135 Minn. 23 , ; Peterson v. Township of Manchester, 162 *238 Minn. 486, ; Lundblad v. Erickson, 180 Minn. 185 , .