Koethe v. O'Brien
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 1885, 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
1 later published case cites this decision.
- Boright v. Springfield Fire & Marine Insurance (Minn. 1885)
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
This is an appeal from an order denying a motion for a new trial. The motion was made on the ground that the verdict was contrary to law and the evidence. The respondent here makes the objection that not only was no case or bill of exceptions allowed or signed by the judge, but the so-called “case” does not show that it contains the whole of the evidence on the issue or issues as to which it is claimed that the verdict is against the evidence. The objection is well taken. Henry v. Hinman, 21 Minn. 378 ; Abrahams v. Sheehan, 27 Minn. 401.
Order affirmed.
Dickinson, J., because of illness, took no part in tills decision.
Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.