DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Explore

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Mason v. MacNeil, 243 N.W. 129.

16 citing documents.

  • Chopp v. Chopp 102 N.W.2d 318 Minn. 1960
    1 Alsdorf v. Svoboda, 239 Minn. 1 , 57 N. W. (2d) 824 ; Martens v. Martens, 211 Minn. 369 , 1 N. W. (2d) 356 ; Sheffield v. Clifford, 186 Minn. 300 , .
  • Nelson v. Dorr 58 N.W.2d 876 Minn. 1953
    Alsdorf v. Svoboda, 239 Minn. 1 , 57 N. W. (2d) 824 ; Martens v. Martens, 211 Minn. 369 , 1 N. W. (2d) 356 ; Sheffield v. Clifford, 186 Minn. 300 , ; Buro v. Morse, 183 Minn. 518 , ; In re Estate of Malchow, 143 Minn. 53 , .
  • Alsdorf v. Svoboda 57 N.W.2d 824 Minn. 1953
    Sheffield v. Clifford, 186 Minn. 300 , ; Smith v. Benefit Assn. of Ry.
  • Anderson v. Tuomi 42 N.W.2d 204 Minn. 1950
    Rogers v. Hedemark, 70 Minn. 441 , ; Louis F. Dow Co. v. Bittner, 185 Minn. 499 , ; Sheffield v. Clifford, 186 Minn. 300 , ; Droege v. Brockmeyer, 214 Minn. 182 , 7 N. W. (2d) 538 ; Motzko v. Motzko, 222 Minn. 36 , 22 N. W. (2d) 920 .
  • Kiebach v. Kiebach 35 N.W.2d 530 Minn. 1948
    3 Cf. Buro v. Morse, 183 Minn. 518, 521 , ; National Surety Co. v. Wittich, 186 Minn. 93, 95 , ; Sheffield v. Clifford, 186 Minn. 300, 306 , ; Smith v. Benefit Assn. of Ry.
  • Johnson v. Johnson 27 N.W.2d 289 Minn. 1947
    293 ; Buro v. Morse, 183 Minn. 518 , ; National Surety Co. v. Wittich, 186 Minn. 93 , ; Sheffield v. Clifford, 186 Minn. 300 , ; Smith v. Benefit Assn. of Railway Employees, 187 Minn. 202 , ; Lafayette Club v. Roberts, 196 Minn. 605 , .
  • Droege v. Brockmeyer 7 N.W.2d 538 Minn. 1943
    That is but a restatement of a long line of cases cited in Sheffield v. Clifford, 186 Minn. 300, 306 , , where we said: “Where the court refuses to make proposed amendments or changes in the findings, that is equivalent to findings negativing the facts asked to be found.” So, also, in Smith v. Benefit Assn. of Railway Employees, 187 Minn. 202, 208 , 244 * where we said: “But where a motion for a
  • State v. Riley 7 N.W.2d 770 Minn. 1942
    Sheffield v. Clifford, 186 Minn. 300 , .
  • Blodgett v. Hollo 298 N.W. 249 Minn. 1941
    Co. 152 Minn. 460, 468 , , 27 A. L. R. 293; Buro v. Morse, 183 Minn. 518 , ; National Surety Co. v. Wittich, 186 Minn. 93 , ; Sheffield v. Clifford, 186 Minn. 300 , ; Smith v. Benefit Assn. of Ry.
  • Nichols v. Village of Morristown 283 N.W. 748 Minn. 1938
  • Nichols v. Village of Morristown 283 N.W. 748 Minn. 1938
    We recognize that he could proceed by motion instead of by action, Mason v. MacNeil, 186 Minn. 278 , .
  • Schaedler v. New York Life Insurance 276 N.W. 235 Minn. 1937
    Berg v. Veit, 136 Minn. 443 , ; Sheffield v. Clifford, 186 Minn. 300 , .
  • In Re Estate of Jordan 271 N.W. 104 Minn. 1937
  • In Re Estate of Jordan 271 N.W. 104 Minn. 1937
    Geisberg v. O’Laughlin, 88 Minn. 431 , ; Cornish v. Coates, 91 Minn. 108 , ; Clark v. Marvin, 140 Minn. 285 , ; Mason v. MacNeil, 186 Minn. 278 , .
  • Wyman v. Trustees of Westminster Presbyterian Church 266 N.W. 165 Minn. 1936
    This court does not review a motion for amended findings, and after a blended motion we consider only the motion for a new trial within the scope of the rule laid down in Sheffield v. Clifford, 186 Minn. 300 , .
  • Smith v. Benefit Assn. of Railway Employees 244 N.W. 817 Minn. 1932
    Co. 152 Minn. 460 , , 27 A. L. R. 293; National Surety Co. v. Wittich, 186 Minn. 93 , ; Sheffield v. Clifford 186 Minn. 300 , ; 6 Dunnell, Minn. Dig.