Minnesota Supreme Court, 1907

Raasch v. Elite Laundry Co.

Raasch v. Elite Laundry Co.
Minnesota Supreme Court · Decided July 19, 1907
102 Minn. 507; 112 N.W. 1141; 1907 Minn. LEXIS 484 (Minnesota Reports)

Counsel

D. W. Lawler and D. F. Lyons, for appellants., How, Butler & Mitchell, for respondent.

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 1916, 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

Raasch v. Elite Laundry Co.

Cases that cite this one

1 later published case cites this decision.

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

PER CURIAM.

This cause was here on a former appeal, and the opinion then rendered is reported in 98 Minn. 357, 108 N. W. 477. The second trial of the action resulted in a verdict for plaintiff for the sum of $5,000. Defendants moved the court for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, which motion was denied. Judgment was then entered, and defendants appealed.

All questions of law pertinent to the issues presented were disposed' of adversely to defendants’ view of the case on the former appeal, and the decision there rendered is the law of the ease. It is contended on this appeal that the evidence is materially different from what it was on the former appeal, and that on the facts as they now appear defendants are entitled to judgment on the merits of the case as a matter of legal right. We are unable to reach that conclusion. A careful examination of the evidence in comparison with that presented by the former record discloses in our view of the matter, no substantial or material variation in the principal facts of the case. It would serve no useful purpose as a precedent to discuss the evidence at length, and we refrain. It is fully set out in the former opinion.

Judgment affirmed.

Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.