Cited by

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

113 citing documents.

Jasinuk v. Lombard 250 N.W. 568 Minn. 1933
Inasmuch .as it was in the power of the court to rehear the whole of defendant’s motion for judgment or a new trial (Barrett v. Smith, 183 Minn. 431 , ), there certainly was no lack of power for or abuse of discretion in the modification of which appellant noAV complains.
General Motors Acceptance Corp. v. Jobe 248 N.W. 213 Minn. 1933
General Motors Acceptance Corp. v. Jobe 248 N.W. 213 Minn. 1933
In Barrett v. Smith, 183 Minn. 431, 440 , , it was said: “A strict and definite rule is needed.
Lamson v. Towle-Jamieson Investment Co. 245 N.W. 627 Minn. 1932
Lamson v. Towle-Jamieson Investment Co. 245 N.W. 627 Minn. 1932
That contention we recently considered and denied in Barrett v. Smith, 183 Minn. 431 , .
Butler v. Butler Brothers 242 N.W. 701 Minn. 1932
Butler v. Butler Brothers 242 N.W. 701 Minn. 1932
Barrett v. Smith, 183 Minn. 431, 443 , .
Barrett v. Smith 242 N.W. 392 Minn. 1932
Barrett v. Smith 242 N.W. 392 Minn. 1932
This is an appeal by the defendants from a judgment entered against them upon the findings which were before the court in the case of Barrett v. Smith, 183 Minn. 431 , 237 N.W.
Davis v. Smith 239 N.W. 150 Minn. 1931
Davis v. Smith 239 N.W. 150 Minn. 1931
The litiga *427 tion in Barrett v. Smith, 183 Minn. 431 , , was also inspired by Meyers.
State v. Stevens 238 N.W. 673 Minn. 1931
State v. Stevens 238 N.W. 673 Minn. 1931
(2 ed. & Supp.) § 7080; Barrett v. Smith, 183 Minn. 431 , .