Taylor v. Spaulding
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 1888, 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.
- Cable v. William Byrne (Minn. 1888)
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
The rule laid down in Hicks v. Stone, 13 Minn. 398, (434,) that, to justify us in reversing an order of the trial court granting a new trial on the ground that the verdict is not sustained by tbe evidence, we must feel satisfied that the preponderance of the evidence is manifestly and palpably in favor of the verdict, and followed in many cases since, disposes of this case. Upon reading over the evidence we cannot say that there is any preponderance in favor of the verdict.
Order affirmed.
Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.