TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Raasch v. Elite Laundry Co.

CLARA RAASCH v. ELITE LAUNDRY COMPANY

Raasch v. Elite Laundry Co., 112 N.W. 1141 (Minn. 1907)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Supreme Court of Minnesota · State Highest Courts
Decided
July 19, 1907
Docket
Nos. 15,275, 15,276—(198, 199)
Citations
112 N.W. 1141102 Minn. 5071907 Minn. LEXIS 484
Disposition
Affirmed.
Summary
Action in the district court for Ramsey county to recover $10,000 for personal injuries. The case was tried before Orr, J., and a jury which rendered' a verdict in favor of plaintiff for $5,000. Defendants’ motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict was denied. From the judgment entered pursuant to the verdict, defendants appealed.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

PER CURIAM.

This cause was here on a former appeal, and the opinion then rendered is reported in 98 Minn. 357 , 108 N. W. 477 . The second trial of the action resulted in a verdict for plaintiff for the sum of $5,000. Defendants moved the court for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, which motion was denied. Judgment was then entered, and defendants appealed.

All questions of law pertinent to the issues presented were disposed' of adversely to defendants’ view of the case on the former appeal, and the decision there rendered is the law of the ease. It is contended on this appeal that the evidence is materially different from what it was on the former appeal, and that on the facts as they now appear defendants are entitled to judgment on the merits of the case as a matter of legal right. We are unable to reach that conclusion. A careful examination of the evidence in comparison with that presented by the former record discloses in our view of the matter, no substantial or material variation in the principal facts of the case. It would serve no useful purpose as a precedent to discuss the evidence at length, and we refrain. It is fully set out in the former opinion.

Judgment affirmed.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1916: 119162026peak 1916 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Ikenberry v. New York Life Insurance159 N.W. 955 (Minn. 1916)

Most recent

  1. Ikenberry v. New York Life Insurance159 N.W. 955 (Minn. 1916)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 1

DepthCaseCited by
Raasch v. Elite Laundry Co., 108 N.W. 477 (Minn. 1906) 9

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list