Vanderburgh v. City of Minneapolis
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 1917, 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.
- Holford v. Crowe (Minn. 1917)
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 to recover damages for the vacation of certain streets in the defendant city, whereby the plaintiff’s lots, as he claims, were depreciated in value. Verdict for the defendant. Plaintiff made a motion for a new trial upon four distinct grounds and twenty seven specifications of error. He appealed from the order denying his motion for a new trial. I-Iis only assignment of error in this court is in these words: “The court below erred in 'denying plaintiff’s motion for a new trial.” The defendant makes the claim in its brief that the assignment is wholly insufficient to raise any questions as- to the correctness of the order appealed from and for this reason declines to discuss them. The case was submitted on briefs by both parties. The defendant’s claim must be sustained in accordance with the uniform decisions of this court. Dunnell, Minn. Pr. § 1796. Order affirmed.
Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.