Carlson v. Small
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 1886, 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
2 later published cases cite this decision.
- Crosby v. St. Paul City Railway Co. (Minn. 1886)
- Jacobson v. Williams (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
It is apparent from the record, and seems to be assumed in the argument here, that the court below granted the new trial because, in its opinion, the verdict was not sustained by the evidence. Although we think the court might have denied the motion, the evidence certainly was not in favor of the verdict to that extent that we could, within the rule laid down in Hicks v. Stone, 13 Minn. 398, (434,) and followed in Rheiner v. Stillwater Street Ry. Co., 29 Minn. 147, interfere with the order of the trial court granting a new trial.
Order affirmed.
Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.