Weber Electric Company v. Tuminelly, Inc.
Weber Electric Company v. Tuminelly, Inc., 206 N.W.2d 656 (Minn. 1973).
The holding in the court’s own words
Under the circumstances, we conclude that the appellant has not consented to waive a jury and should have been granted a new trial.
Quoted verbatim from the opinion — no paraphrase, nothing generated. Not yet human-reviewed. How we find the holding.
Cited by
- Schweich v. Ziegler, Inc. 463 N.W.2d 722 Minn. 1990
- Peterson v. Steinmaus 393 N.W.2d 693 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Opinion text
Per Curiam. This is an appeal by a third-party defendant, Dorso Trailer Sales, Inc., from an order denying it a new trial. The only issue is whether it was *489 error not to grant appellant a jury trial. We hold that it was and reverse. It is undisputed that both a jury trial and a court trial were designated in various notes of issue. Although the respondent third-party plaintiff supports appellant’s contention that appellant had specifically asked the court for a jury trial, the court had no recollection of the motion and the record was silent on the subject. Rule 38.01, Rules of Civil Procedure, entitled the parties to a jury trial unless the right was waived under Rule 38.02. The latter provision specifies the manner of waiver as follows: “In actions arising on contract, and by permission of the court in other actions, any party thereto may waive a jury trial in the manner following: (1) By failing to appear at the trial; (2) By written consent, by the party or his attorney, filed with the clerk; (3) By oral consent in open court, entered in the minutes.” Under the circumstances, we conclude that the appellant has not consented to waive a jury and should have been granted a new trial. Reversed.