Wendelsdorf v. County of Martin
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 1985, 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)
- Welsh v. Barnes-Duluth Shipbuilding Co. (Minn. 1945)
- Sauter v. Wasemiller (Minn. Ct. App. 1985)
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
On this appeal from a judgment, the only errors assigned by plaintiff are two rulings of the trial court concerning the admission of testimony and the order of the court dismissing the action at the close of plaintiff’s case.
No exception was taken to the rulings on the admission of evidence nor to the order dismissing the action. There was no motion for a new trial and hence no assignment of error in the court below.
It is now well settled in this state that error, if any, in a ruling on the trial may not be reviewed on appeal from a judgment if appellant did not take an exception to the ruling on the trial or *615 assign it as error in a motion for a new trial. Winning v. Timm, 210 Minn. 270, 297 N. W. 739. See, also, Ranum v. Swenson, 220 Minn. 170, 19 N. W. (2d) 327.
Therefore, the questions raised by plaintiff are not properly before us.
Affirmed.
Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.