Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Barrett v. Smith, 237 N.W. 15.

113 citing documents.

Anderson v. Lyons 32 N.W.2d 849 Minn. 1948
Anderson v. Lyons 32 N.W.2d 849 Minn. 1948
As we held in the Bulau case, such an order is res judicata (that is, in the limited sense in which the term is applied to orders, Barrett v. Smith, 183 Minn. 431 , ) only as to the questions actually litigated and decided, with the consequence that if an application to vacate is denied upon grounds other than the merits the order is not res judicata as to the merits.
In Re Trust Created by Will of Enger 30 N.W.2d 694 Minn. 1948
Leraan v. Aftenro Society 30 N.W.2d 694 Minn. 1948
Leraan v. Aftenro Society 30 N.W.2d 694 Minn. 1948
Melady-Briggs Cattle Corp. v. Drovers State Bank, 213 Minn. 304 , 6 N. W. (2d) 454 ; Ingelson v. Olson, 199 Minn. 422 , , 110 A. L. R. 167; Barrett v. Smith, 183 Minn. 431 , ; Thaw v. Detroit Trust Co. 307 Mich.
In Re Trust Created by Will of Enger 30 N.W.2d 694 Minn. 1948
167 ; Barrett v. Smith, 183 Minn. 431 , 237 N.W.
In Re Estate of Wilson 27 N.W.2d 429 Minn. 1947
Teschendorf v. Strangeway 27 N.W.2d 429 Minn. 1947
Teschendorf v. Strangeway 27 N.W.2d 429 Minn. 1947
The proper practice in cases of this kind was considered at length and decided in Barrett v. Smith, 183 Minn. 431 , .
In Re Estate of Wilson 27 N.W.2d 429 Minn. 1947
The proper practice in cases of this kind was considered at length and decided in Barrett v. Smith, 183 Minn. 431 , 237 N.W.
Corwin v. Hudson 20 N.W.2d 330 Minn. 1945
In Re Guardianship of Hudson 20 N.W.2d 330 Minn. 1945
Corwin v. Hudson 20 N.W.2d 330 Minn. 1945
The two cases of Barrett v. Smith, 183 Minn. 431 , , and In re Guardianship of Jaus, 198 Minn. 242 , , relied on by respondent, are not in point.
In Re Guardianship of Hudson 20 N.W.2d 330 Minn. 1945
The two cases of Barrett v. Smith, 183 Minn. 431 , 237 N.W.
Crawford v. Duluth, Missabe & Iron Range Railway Co. 18 N.W.2d 317 Minn. 1945
Crawford v. Duluth, Missabe & Iron Range Railway Co. 18 N.W.2d 317 Minn. 1945
In Barrett v. Smith, 183 Minn. 431, 439 , , this court, in considering substantially the same question as is here involved, said: “* * * If the court has the power to reconsider, as obviously it has, and does so and again denies the motion, why should there not be an appeal, even though the time for appealing from the first order has e
Erickson-Hellekson-Vye Co. v. A. Wells Co. 15 N.W.2d 162 Minn. 1944
Erickson-Hellekson-Vye Co. v. A. Wells Co. 15 N.W.2d 162 Minn. 1944
651 ; Barrett v. Smith, 183 Minn. 431 , 442 , 237 N.W.
Mitchell v. Bazille 13 N.W.2d 20 Minn. 1944
Mitchell v. Bazille 13 N.W.2d 20 Minn. 1944
In support of this view, respondents cite Barrett v. Smith, 183 Minn. 431 , , where we held that, where a motion for a new trial is denied, a second motion for a new trial upon the same grounds, made after the time to appeal from the order denying the prior motion had expired, is not appealable unless the order on the prior motion had been vacated before the second motion was h
Parsons v. Town of New Canada 295 N.W. 909 Minn. 1941
Parsons v. Town of New Canada 295 N.W. 909 Minn. 1941
Co. 187 Minn. 368 , ; McLaughlin v. City of Breckenridge, 122 Minn. 154 , , ; Barrett v. Smith, 183 Minn. 431 , .
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
Barrett v. Smith, 183 Minn. 431 , 436 , 237 N.W.
State & Railroad & Warehouse Commission v. Rock Island Motor Transit Co. 295 N.W. 519 Minn. 1940
Barrett v. Smith, 183 Minn. 431, 436 , .
In Re Guardianship of Carpenter 281 N.W. 867 Minn. 1938
Fletcher v. Scott 277 N.W. 270 Minn. 1938
Fletcher v. Scott 277 N.W. 270 Minn. 1938
(U. S.) 275, 14 L. ed. 936; Barrett v. Smith, 183 Minn. 431, 436 , .
In Re Estate of Borlaug 276 N.W. 732 Minn. 1937
Lake Park Development Co. v. Paul Steenberg Construction Co. 276 N.W. 651 Minn. 1937
Lake Park Development Co. v. Paul Steenberg Construction Co. 276 N.W. 651 Minn. 1937
Barrett v. Smith, 183 Minn. 431 , .
In Re Estate of Borlaug 276 N.W. 732 Minn. 1937
In the case of Barrett v. Smith, 183 Minn. 431 , , it was held that the power of the district court to review and vacate an appealable order made before judgment or to permit a renewal or repetition of the motion is not lost because of the expiration of the time to appeal.
Ross v. Duluth, Missabe & Iron Range Railway Co. 275 N.W. 622 Minn. 1937
Ross v. Duluth, Missabe & Iron Range Railway Co. 275 N.W. 622 Minn. 1937
The appeal must be and is dismissed under the rule of Barrett v. Smith, 183 Minn. 431 , .
In Re Estate of Jordan 271 N.W. 104 Minn. 1937
In Re Estate of Jordan 271 N.W. 104 Minn. 1937
The difference is clearly pointed out in Barrett v. Smith, 188 Minn. 481 , .
In Re Guardianship of Jaus 269 N.W. 457 Minn. 1936
In Re Guardianship of Jaus 269 N.W. 457 Minn. 1936
Little v. Leighton, 46 Minn. 201 , ; Worrlein v. Maier, 177 Minn. 474, 475 , ; Barrett v. Smith, 183 Minn. 431 , .
Gilmore v. City of Mankato 269 N.W. 113 Minn. 1936
Gilmore v. City of Mankato 269 N.W. 113 Minn. 1936
Barrett v. Smith, 183 Minn. 431 , , seems conclusive on that point.
Johnson v. Union Savings Bank & Trust Co. 266 N.W. 169 Minn. 1936
Johnson v. Union Savings Bank & Trust Co. 266 N.W. 169 Minn. 1936
Barrett v. Smith, 183 Minn. 431 , .
Johnson v. Union Savings Bank & Trust Co. 258 N.W. 504 Minn. 1935
Johnson v. Union Savings Bank & Trust Co. 258 N.W. 504 Minn. 1935
(2 ed. & Supp.) § 318; Barrett v. Smith, 183 Minn. 431 , ; General Motors Acceptance Corp. v. Jobe, 188 Minn. 598 , .
Spears v. Drake 258 N.W. 149 Minn. 1935
Spears v. Drake 258 N.W. 149 Minn. 1935
Whatever the potency of the order, by itself, to render the res judicata (see Barrett v. Smith, 183 Minn. 431 , , and 19 R. C. L. 676), the judgment in the first action ends the matter.
Lehman v. Norton 253 N.W. 663 Minn. 1934
Lehman v. Norton 253 N.W. 663 Minn. 1934
Barrett v. Smith, 183 Minn. 431 , .
Jasinuk v. Lombard 250 N.W. 568 Minn. 1933

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by