Deakin v. Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway Co.
Can I rely on this case?
Citation treatment has not been reviewed for this case. The notes below come from the citation graph and the Minnesota Revisor's amendment records, not from a review of how later courts treated this decision.
(as of 9/30/2026)
Last cited by a Minnesota appellate court in 1915, among the opinions in this site’s citation index.
Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
See our Terms of Use before relying on these notes. Report an error
Cases that cite this one
5 later published cases cite this decision.
- Busack v. Johnson (Minn. 1915)
- McRoberts v. McArthur (Minn. 1895)
- State v. Bishop Seabury Mission (Minn. 1903)
- Davidson v. St. Paul, Minneapolis & Manitoba Railway Co. (Minn. 1885)
- Keith v. Briggs (Minn. 1884)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
Wo need not inquire whether, at the close of his testimony in chief, the plaintiff had or had not introduced evidence sufficient to establish his alleged cause of action. If he had not, any error of the court in refusing to grant defendant’s motion to dismiss was cured, if, in the after progress of the trial, competent evidence was received sufficient to supply the deficiency. Berkey v. Judd, 22 Minn. 287.
The simple question remains whether, the evidence in the case was sufficient to support the verdict. Upon a careful study of the testimony, we have come to the conclusion that it has a sufficient tendency to establish plaintiff’s alleged cause of action in all material points, and that therefore the-verdict should not be disturbed.
Order denying new trial affirmed.
Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.