Winning v. Timm
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 1955, 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
3 later published cases cite this decision.
- LeMay v. Minneapolis Street Railway Co. (Minn. 1955)
- Wendelsdorf v. County of Martin (Minn. 1945)
- Meiners v. Kennedy (Minn. 1945)
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
Plaintiff appeals from a judgment dismissing his cause of action. The only error assigned here is that “the court erred in granting *271 respondent’s motion to dismiss for insufficient evidence to warrant tlie jury in finding in favor of the plaintiff.”
At the close of plaintiff’s case defendant moved for a dismissal on the ground of insufficiency of the evidence. The trial court granted the motion. No exception was taken to this ruling. There was no motion for a new trial and consequently no assignment of error in the court below.
Error, if any, in a ruling on the trial may not be reviewed on an appeal from a judgment if appellant did not take an exception to the ruling on the trial or assign it as error in a motion for a new trial. 2 Mason Minn. St. 1927, § 9327; 1 Dunnell, Minn. Dig. (2 ed. & Supps.) §§ 388, 388a; Le Mieux v. Cosgrove, 155 Minn. 353, 193 N. W. 586; Peterson v. Township of Manchester, 162 Minn. 486, 203 N. W. 432; Lundblad v. Erickson, 180 Minn. 185, 230 N. W. 473; Duluth, Missabe & Northern Ry. Co. v. McCarthy, 183 Minn. 414, 236 N. W. 766; Johnson v. Gustafson, 201 Minn. 629, 277 N. W. 252.
Presented at the outset with this situation, we do not deem the other questions involved in the appeal as properly before us.
Affirmed.
Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.