Smith v. Herz Manufacturing Co.
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 2002, 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.
- Abraham v. County of Hennepin (Minn. 2002)
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 complaint in this action alleged that plaintiff had been employed by defendant for the period of one year at a compensation of $3,000— $25 per week cash, and the remainder in full-paid capital stock of defendant company — and that after working several months defendant discharged him without cause, by reason whereof this action was brought to recover damages. The answer admitted the contract, and alleged that plaintiff had not been discharged, but had left defendant’s employ voluntarily. All other matters having been disposed of by stipulation or agreement, one single question was submitted to the jury: Did defendant discharge plaintiff, or did plaintiff voluntarily leave defendant’s employ? A verdict was returned for plaintiff, and the only
Order affirmed.
Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.