State v. Mathley
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 1914, 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.
- Noonan v. Spear (Minn. 1914)
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
A careful consideration of the record in this case leads to the conclusion that the order denying a new trial, asked for on the ground of newly discovered evidence, should be affirmed. The new evidence is either cumulative or impeaching in character, and is not so far conclusive of defendant’s innocence, or of a nature likely to change the result on another trial, as to justify interference by this court. The fact that the order was made by a judge other than the one before whom the case was tried does not change its discretionary character. Hughley v. City of Wabasha, 69 Minn. 245, 72 N. W. 78; First Nat. Bank v. City of St. Cloud, 73 Minn. 219, 75 N. W. 1054.
Order affirmed.
Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.