Burgraf v. Byrnes
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
1 later published case cites this decision.
- Melin v. Stuart (Minn. 1913)
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
This cause was here on two former appeals. 94 Minn. 418, 103 N. W. 215; 99 Minn. 517, 109 N. W. 1132. The first appeal involved the sufficiency of the complaint, and the second was from an order granting defendant a new trial on the ground of surprise and excusable neglect. It is now hereon plaintiff’s appeal from an order granting defendant a new trial on the grounds (1) of errors in law occurring at the trial, and (2) that the verdict for plaintiff was not justified by the evidence.
The case requires no extended opinion. We discover no errors in the rulings of the court sufficient to justify a new trial, but a careful examination of the evidence leads to the conclusion that the order should not, within the rule of Hicks v. Stone, 13 Minn. 398 (434), be disturbed.
Order affirmed.
Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.