Finke v. Lukensmeyer
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 1913, 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
3 later published cases cite this decision.
- Haney v. Welty (Wyo. 1917)
- Sheehy v. Whipps (Minn. 1913)
- Hughes v. Chicago, Indianapolis & Louisville Railway Co. (Ind. Ct. App. 1912)
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 judgment appealed from will have to be affirmed. On questions of both law and fact, defendant appealed to the district court from a judgment rendered by a justice of the peace. It was not material in the appellate court to consider whether the judgment appealed from was valid or unauthorized, for the justice had jurisdiction of the parties and of the subject-matter. The appeal on both law and fact brought the case to the district court for trial de novo upon its merits. This has been held repeatedly here. See Bingham v. Stewart, 14 Minn. 214, (Gil. 153;) Craighead v. Martin, 25 Minn. 41; Seurer v. Horst, 31 Minn. 479, (18 N. W. Rep. 283;) Welter v. Nokken, 38 Minn. 376, (37 N. W. Rep. 947;) McOmber v. Balow, 40 Minn. 388, (42 N. W. Rep. 83.)
Judgment affirmed.
(Opinion published 53 N. W. Rep. 546.)
Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.