Simerman v. Hackenkamp
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 1932, 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.
- Wismo Company v. Martin (Minn. 1932)
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
After verdict for defendant, plaintiff moved for judgment notwithstanding. That motion was denied and judgment entered for defendant) from which plaintiff appeals. The case was argued and submitted with Simerman v. Habisch, 178 Minn. 15, 225 N. W. 913, opinion in which is filed herewith, and is so similar on its facts as to be controlled by that decision. Defendant’s testimony was that he signed what later appeared to be the promissory note in *20 suit upon the representation and believing that he was signing a paper only for the purpose of giving the stock salesmen his name and address.
Judgment affirmed.
Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.