Schultz v. Schneckenberger
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 1929, 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.
- Powell v. Standard Oil Co. (Minn. 1926)
- Ludwig v. Spicer (Minn. 1906)
- Anderson v. Larson (Minn. 1929)
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
Action by plaintiff to recover $60, due for rent. Defense, payment in part. .Verdict for plaintiff. Appeal by defendant from an order denying Ms motion for a new trial.
There are two assignments of error requiring notice: First. Does the evidence support the verdict. Second. Misconduct of counsel for plaintiff in Ms argument to the jury.
1. We have read the evidence, and conclude that it is sufficient to sustain the verdict.
2. It is unnecessary to consider the language of counsel referred to in the assignment. If it was worthy of any notice whatever on the part of the court, in the absence of a request for a ruling or any ruling, an exception is insufficient to raise the question as to its effect on appeal. Mykleby v. Chicago, St. P., M. & O. Ry. Co., 49 Minn. 457, 52 N. W. 213, and cases cited.
Order affirmed.
Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.