DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Explore

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Ginsberg v. Williams, 135 N.W.2d 213.

55 citing documents.

  • Mike Allen Homes, LLC, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2024
    A district court “ha[s] no power to grant a new trial for a cause not enumerated by the rules,” and any order granting a new trial outside these enumerated grounds is “ineffective and void.”
  • ARF, LLC, a Minnesota limited liability company, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
    The district court “ha[s] no power to grant a new trial for a cause not enumerated by the rules,” and any court order purporting to do so is “ineffective and void.” Ginsberg v. Williams , (noting that district court’ s power to grant a new trial is limited to those reasons articulated in rule 59.01 and a new trial cannot be granted for a reason not enumerated in the rules).
  • Jane Doe, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
    P. 10.01 is the province of the Minnesota Supreme Court and that the “carefully structured advisory-c ommittee process is the appropriate method for amending the Rules.” Madison Equities, Inc., d at 572-73 (citing Ginsberg v. Williams, 270 Minn. 474, 48 4-85, -21 (1965)).
  • Madison Equities, Inc. v. Robert L. Crockarell 889 N.W.2d 568 Minn. 2017
  • Madison Equities, Inc. v. Robert L. Crockarell 889 N.W.2d 568 Minn. 2017
    See Ginsberg v. Williams, 270 Minn. 474
  • Clifford v. Geritom Med, Inc. 681 N.W.2d 680 Minn. 2004
  • Clifford v. Geritom Med, Inc. 681 N.W.2d 680 Minn. 2004
    Ginsberg v. Williams, 270 Minn. 474, 485
  • State v. Turner 550 N.W.2d 622 Minn. 1996
  • State v. Turner 550 N.W.2d 622 Minn. 1996
    See Mampel, supra; Ginsberg v. Williams, 270 Minn. 474
  • In Re Quinn 503 N.W.2d 480 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
  • In Re Quinn 503 N.W.2d 480 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
    See, e.g., Ginsberg v. Williams, 270 Minn. 474, 479 , (writ of prohibition will issue to restrain court from exceeding its legitimate powers in a matter over which it has jurisdiction); (Minn.App.
  • In re Access to Law Enforcement Records Relating to the Arrest of Quinn 503 N.W.2d 480 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
  • In re Access to Law Enforcement Records Relating to the Arrest of Quinn 503 N.W.2d 480 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
    See, e.g., Ginsberg v. Williams, 270 Minn. 474, 479 , (writ of prohibition will issue to restrain court from exceeding its legitimate powers in a matter over which it has jurisdiction); (Minn.App.
  • Berney v. United Hospital 442 N.W.2d 857 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
  • Berney v. United Hospital 442 N.W.2d 857 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
    See Ginsberg v. Williams, 270 Minn. 474, 479 , -18 (1965) (when provision authorizing certain type of appeal is deleted, right to appeal is thereby abolished and “no longer exists”).
  • Lampert Lumber Co. v. Joyce 405 N.W.2d 423 Minn. 1987
  • Lampert Lumber Co. v. Joyce 405 N.W.2d 423 Minn. 1987
    Compare Ginsberg v. Williams, 270 Minn. 474, 483 , (trial court’s power td grant a new trial is limited to reasons given in the rules and a new trial cannot be granted for a reason not enumerated in the rules).
  • Hancock-Nelson Mercantile Co. v. Weisman 340 N.W.2d 866 Minn. Ct. App. 1983
  • Hancock-Nelson Mercantile Co. v. Weisman 340 N.W.2d 866 Minn. Ct. App. 1983
    See, e.g., Wasmund v. Nunamaker, 277 Minn. 52 , (discovery); Thermorama v. Shiller, 271 Minn. 79 , (discovery); Ginsberg v. Williams, 270 Minn. 474 , (new trial); Weidel v. Plummer, 243 Minn. 476 , (temporary award of child custody); State ex rel.
  • Conover v. Northern States Power Co. 313 N.W.2d 397 Minn. 1981
  • Conover v. Northern States Power Co. 313 N.W.2d 397 Minn. 1981
    While the question is a close one, we believe we should defer to the presiding trial judge to whom is given, although to be exercised with caution, the “broadest possible discretionary power.” Ginsberg v. Williams, 270 Minn. 474
  • State v. Wingo 266 N.W.2d 508 Minn. 1978
  • State v. Wingo 266 N.W.2d 508 Minn. 1978
    Ginsberg v. Williams, 270 Minn. 474
  • Joseph v. Haggen 254 N.W.2d 688 Minn. 1977
  • Joseph v. Haggen 254 N.W.2d 688 Minn. 1977
    *689 We did not wholly disavow the “broad discretionary authority” of the trial court stated in more recent cases such as Ginsberg v. Williams, 270 Minn. 474 , but did undertake to correct “the impression that the trial court is free to set aside a jury verdict whenever it is displeased or dissatisfied with the result of the jury’s deliberations.” Minn., .
  • Koenig v. Ludowese 243 N.W.2d 29 Minn. 1976
  • Koenig v. Ludowese 243 N.W.2d 29 Minn. 1976
    Ginsberg v. Williams, 270 Minn. 474 , recognized the broad discretionary authority on the part of trial courts to order new trials in cases where the verdict is not supported by the evidence.
  • Gorder v. Sims 237 N.W.2d 67 Minn. 1975
  • Gorder v. Sims 237 N.W.2d 67 Minn. 1975
    See, Ginsberg v. Williams, 270 Minn. 474 , Albright v. Henry, 285 Minn. 452
  • Begin v. Weber 234 N.W.2d 192 Minn. 1975
  • Begin v. Weber 234 N.W.2d 192 Minn. 1975
    Ginsberg v. Williams, 270 Minn. 474, 483 , Brooks Realty, Inc. v. Aetna Ins.
  • Larson v. Independent School District No. 314 233 N.W.2d 744 Minn. 1975
  • Larson v. Independent School District No. 314 233 N.W.2d 744 Minn. 1975
    1 The use of the writ of prohibition for obtaining review of certain interlocutory orders is approved in Ginsberg v. Williams, 270 Minn. 474 , and Bellows v. Ericson, 233 Minn. 320
  • Appeal of O'Rourke 220 N.W.2d 811 Minn. 1974
  • Stolp v. Scrimshaw 220 N.W.2d 811 Minn. 1974
  • Appeal of O'Rourke 220 N.W.2d 811 Minn. 1974
    The best summation of the rule that appellate review "as of right" is "purely statutory" is contained in Ginsberg v. Williams, 270 Minn. 474, 476 , 135 N.W.
  • Stolp v. Scrimshaw 220 N.W.2d 811 Minn. 1974
    The best summation of the rule that appellate review “as of right” is “purely statutory” is contained in Ginsberg v. Williams, 270 Minn. 474, 476
  • Gorder v. Sims 211 N.W.2d 369 Minn. 1973
  • Gorder v. Sims 211 N.W.2d 369 Minn. 1973
    However, as was pointed out in Ginsberg v. Williams, 270 Minn. 474, 482 , the holding in the Bank of Willmar case was rendered moot by Rule 59.05, Rules of Civil Procedure.
  • Conroy v. Kleinman Realty Co. 179 N.W.2d 162 Minn. 1970
  • Conroy v. Kleinman Realty Co. 179 N.W.2d 162 Minn. 1970
    5 See, also, Ginsberg v. Williams, 270 Minn. 474 , 135 N. W. (2d) 213 .
  • Grorud v. Thomasson 177 N.W.2d 51 Minn. 1970
  • Grorud v. Thomasson 177 N.W.2d 51 Minn. 1970
    First, its stated conclusion is that “the ends of justice can best be served by granting a new trial,” which, as we held in Ginsberg v. Williams, 270 Minn. 474 , 135 N. W. (2d) 213 , is not an authorized cause for granting a new trial.
  • Albright v. Henry 174 N.W.2d 106 Minn. 1970
  • Albright v. Henry 174 N.W.2d 106 Minn. 1970
    We had occasion to review the problems presented when the trial court granted a new trial “in the interest of justice” in Ginsberg v. Williams, 270 Minn. 474 , 135 N. W. (2d) 213 .
  • 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. Hankscraft Co. Inc. 278 Minn. 322 , 154 N. W. (2d) 488 .
  • McCormack v. Hankscraft Company 154 N.W.2d 488 Minn. 1967
  • McCormack v. Hankscraft Company 154 N.W.2d 488 Minn. 1967
    The recent case of Ginsberg v. Williams, 270 Minn. 474 , 135 N. W. (2d) 213 , would permit us to hold that the order is beyond the power of the court and therefore void.
  • State ex rel. Graham v. District Court 150 N.W.2d 24 Minn. 1967