DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Von Bank v. Mayer, 59 N.W.2d 307.

28 citing documents.

  • Haugen v. International Transport, Inc. 379 N.W.2d 529 Minn. 1986
  • Haugen v. International Transport, Inc. 379 N.W.2d 529 Minn. 1986
    Satter v. Turner, 257 Minn. 145, 157, Von Bank v. Mayer, 239 Minn. 492, 495 , , 309 *531 (1953); see also Koenigs v. Werner, 263 Minn. 80, 83-84
  • Haugen v. International Transport, Inc. 364 N.W.2d 484 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
  • Haugen v. International Transport, Inc. 364 N.W.2d 484 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
    Satter v. Turner, 257 Minn. 145 , Von Bank v. Mayer, 239 Minn. 492
  • Peterson v. Schulte 166 N.W.2d 713 Minn. 1969
  • Peterson v. Schulte 166 N.W.2d 713 Minn. 1969
    Von Bank v. Mayer, 239 Minn. 492 , 59 N. W. (2d) 307 ; Anderson v. Jennie, 248 Minn. 369 , 80 N. W. (2d) 41 ; Dubois v. Clark, 253 Minn. 556 , 93 N. W. (2d) 533 ; Block v. Hall, 263 Minn 582, 116 N. W. (2d) 505 ; Anderson v. Gabrielson, 267 Minn. 176 , 126 N. W. (2d) 239 ; Ginsberg v. Williams, 270 Minn. 474 , 135 N. W. (2d) 213 ; McCormack v. Hanksc
  • Ronningen v. Sonterre 143 N.W.2d 53 Minn. 1966
  • Ronningen v. Sonterre 143 N.W.2d 53 Minn. 1966
    An error in the instructions with respect to fundamental law or controlling principle may be assigned in a motion for a new trial though it was not otherwise called to the attention of the court.” 2 See, Von Bank v. Mayer, 239 Minn. 492 , 59 N. W. (2d) 307 ; Noren v. Hankee, 241 Minn. 379 , 63 N. W. (2d) 43 ; Kubinski v. Speckman, 261 Minn. 475 , 113 N. W. (2d) 173 ; Kelsey v. Chicago, R. I. & P. R. Co. 262 Minn. 219 , 114 N. W. (2d) 90 .
  • Koenigs v. Werner 116 N.W.2d 73 Minn. 1962
  • Koenigs v. Werner 116 N.W.2d 73 Minn. 1962
    McMillen v. Meyer, 246 Minn. 132, 136 , 74 N. W. (2d) 393, 396 ; Weatherhead v. Burau, 237 Minn. 325, 327 , 54 N. W. (2d) 570, 571 ; Satter v. Turner, 257 Minn. 145 , 100 N. W. (2d) 660 ; Laramie Motors, Inc. v. Larson, 253 Minn. 484 , 92 N. W. (2d) 803 ; Anderson v. Jennie, 248 Minn. 369 , 80 N. W. (2d) 41 ; Smith v. Illinois Central R. Co. 244 Minn. 52 , 68 N. W. (2d) 638 ; Von Bank v. Mayer, 239 Minn. 492 , 59 N. W. (2d) 307 ; Voller v. Schmitz, 236 Minn. 155 , 52 N. W. (2d) 289 ; Kelsey v. C
  • Kubinski v. Speckman 113 N.W.2d 173 Minn. 1962
  • Kubinski v. Speckman 113 N.W.2d 173 Minn. 1962
    Satter v. Turner, 257 Minn. 145 , 100 N. W. (2d) 660 ; Laramie Motors, Inc. v. Larson, 253 Minn. 484 , 92 N. W. (2d) 803 ; Anderson v. Jennie, 248 Minn. 369 , 80 N. W. (2d) 41 ; McMillen v. Meyer, 246 Minn. 132 , 74 N. W. (2d) 393 ; Von Bank v. Mayer, 239 Minn. 492 , 59 N. W. (2d) 307 .
  • Satter v. Turner 100 N.W.2d 660 Minn. 1960
  • Satter v. Turner 100 N.W.2d 660 Minn. 1960
    Noren v. Hankee, 241 Minn. 379 , 63 N. W. (2d) 43 ; Von Bank v. Mayer, 239 Minn. 492 , 59 N. W. (2d) 307 ; Schaumburg v. Ludwig, 240 Minn. 128 , 60 N. W. (2d) 12 .
  • Dubois v. Clark 93 N.W.2d 533 Minn. 1958
  • Dubois v. Clark 93 N.W.2d 533 Minn. 1958
    The appeal must, therefore, be dismissed.” See, also, Voller v. Schmitz, 236 Minn. 155 , 52 N. W. (2d) 289 ; Von Bank v. Mayer, 239 Minn. 492 , 59 N. W. (2d) 307 .
  • Laramie Motors, Inc. v. Larson 92 N.W.2d 803 Minn. 1958
  • Laramie Motors, Inc. v. Larson 92 N.W.2d 803 Minn. 1958
    R. Co. 244 Minn. 52 , 68 N. W. (2d) 638 ; Von Bank v. Mayer, 239 Minn. 492 , 59 N. W. (2d) 307 ; 1 Dunnell, Dig.
  • Anderson v. Jennie 80 N.W.2d 41 Minn. 1956
  • Anderson v. Jennie 80 N.W.2d 41 Minn. 1956
    It must appear that no element of judiciál discretion was exercised.” *371 In discussing the foregoing rule of the Weatherhead case we said in Von Bank v. Mayer, 239 Minn. 492, 495 , 59 N. W. (2d) 307 , 308: “This rule is not to be extended.
  • McMillen v. Meyer 74 N.W.2d 393 Minn. 1956
  • McMillen v. Meyer 74 N.W.2d 393 Minn. 1956
    In the recent case of Von Bank v. Mayer, 239 Minn. 492 , 59 N. W. (2d) 307 , we again emphasized that an order granting a new trial is not appealable where the granting involves the exercise of any element of judicial discretion and is therefore not based exclusively upon errors of law occurring at the trial.
  • Smith v. Illinois Central Railroad 68 N.W.2d 638 Minn. 1955
  • Smith v. Illinois Central Railroad 68 N.W.2d 638 Minn. 1955
    See, Noren v. Hankee, 241 Minn. 379 , 63 N. W. (2d) 43 ; Von Bank v. Mayer, 239 Minn. 492 , 59 N. W. (2d) 307 ; cf. Schaumburg v. Ludwig, 240 Minn. 128 , 60 N. W. (2d) 12 ; Kamofsky v. Wells-Dickey Co. 183 Minn. 563 , .
  • Noren v. Hankee 63 N.W.2d 43 Minn. 1954
  • Noren v. Hankee 63 N.W.2d 43 Minn. 1954
    detailed the claimed errors of law, stated that it was error to have admitted certain evidence over plaintiff’s objection, and concluded: “For the reasons here given, “It is hereby ordered that the verdict of the jury heretofore entered in favor of the defendant is in all respects set aside, and a new trial granted to the plaintiff.” We have recently considered § 605.09(4) in Von Bank v. Mayer, 239 Minn. 492, 495 , 59 N. W. (2d) 307, 308 , where we said: “* * * Either the statutory language must
  • Schaumburg v. Ludwig 60 N.W.2d 12 Minn. 1953
  • Schaumburg v. Ludwig 60 N.W.2d 12 Minn. 1953
    Von Bank v. Mayer, 239 Minn. 492 , 59 N. W. (2d) 307 .