Minnesota Supreme Court, 1975

Glood v. Gundlach

Minnesota Supreme Court · Decided April 11, 1975 · Per Curiam

228 N.W.2d 566; 303 Minn. 447; 1975 Minn. LEXIS 1555 (North Western Reporter, Second Series)

Counsel

Wurst, Bundlie, Carroll & Crouch and Norman W. Larsen, for appellant., Charles W. Anderson, for respondent.

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 1990, 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.

May v. Strecker (Minn. Ct. App. 1990)

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

Per Curiam.

Plaintiff sought to recover damages for personal injuries sustained when her automobile was struck in the rear by an automobile driven by defendant. The jury upon, special verdict found defendant was not negligent. Upon plaintiff’s post-trial motions, the trial court granted plaintiff a new trial on the issue of liability and defendant appealed from the order. The trial court filed a memorandum, not specifically made a part of the order, explaining that the new trial was granted on the ground of errors of law. The trial court had the right, pursuant to Rule 59.01(6), Rules of Civil Procedure, to grant a new trial.

An examination of the memorandum makes clear that the court felt the exclusion of certain evidence deprived plaintiff of a fair trial. We hold that both an order granting a new trial and a memorandum of the court accompanying said order, whether or not the memorandum is specifically made a part of the order, will be looked to by the court on review to determine whether the order is appealable.

In this case, it is clear the trial court granted a new trial based exclusively on errors of law occurring at the trial, and, thus, the order is appealablé. However, we also hold that the trial court in this case did not abuse its discretion nor exceed its authority in granting a new trial.

Affirmed.

Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.