Fara v. Great Northern Railway Co.
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 1974, 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
2 later published cases cite this decision.
- Marshall v. City of Beach (N.D. 1980)
- Vanden Broucke v. Lyon County (Minn. 1974)
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
Upon plaintiff’s petition in her action claiming damages for personal injuries arising out of a grade-crossing accident we issued an alternative writ of mandamus to review the order of the District Court of St. Louis County and the Honorable J. K. Underhill, judge thereof, granting defendant railway company’s motion for a change of venue from St. Louis County to either Kanabec or Pine County at plaintiff’s option.
Considering only those facts presented to the trial court, as required by Thies v. Midland Co-op. Wholesale, Inc. 254 Minn. 369, 95 N. W. (2d) 307, we are of the opinion that the court did not abuse its discretion by ordering the change of venue. Since it is not shown that the trial of the action was thereby delayed, we are not prepared to hold that the motion was untimely or that the court was precluded from making its order under Rule 29, Code of Rules for the District Court. 1
The change was ordered pursuant to Minn. St. 542.11(4) to promote the convenience of witnesses and the ends of justice. One factor considered by the court in ordering a change was the possibility that the jury may be granted a view of the scene. This is a proper factor to consider in venue motions, and in the absence of prejudice or inconvenience to plaintiff, it could be given weight in determining the motion. Miller v. Anchor Cas. Co. 233 Minn. 87, 45 N. W. (2d) 705. Inasmuch as the facts *574 before the trial court were susceptible of supporting an order either granting or denying the defendant’s motion, a clear abuse of discretion is not shown, and we decline to interfere.
Writ discharged.
Minn. St. 1961, p. 4940; Thon v. Erickson, 232 Minn. 323, 45 N. W. (2d) 560.
Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.