Derdoski v. Brecht

Supreme Court of Minnesota

Derdoski v. Brecht

289 N.W. 829, 206 Minn. 598, 1940 Minn. LEXIS 720

CourtSupreme Court of Minnesota

DecidedJanuary 5, 1940

DocketNo. 32,197.

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 289 N.W. 829 (Derdoski v. Brecht) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Minnesota primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Derdoski v. Brecht, 289 N.W. 829, 206 Minn. 598, 1940 Minn. LEXIS 720 (Mich. 1940).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

This case is another arising from the accident involved in Schweikert v. Peters Sausage Co. 206 Minn. 596, 289 N. W. 828, the opinion in which is filed herewith. Plaintiff, driver of the truck, upon suing Brecht, owner and driver of the sedan, met the latter’s counterclaim, upon which the jury found for Brecht and awarded him damages. For the reason stated in the other case, the order denying plaintiff’s blended motion must be affirmed.

So ordered.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Per Curiam.

This case is another arising from the accident involved in Schweikert v. Peters Sausage Co. 206 Minn. 596, 289 N. W. 828, the opinion in which is filed herewith. Plaintiff, driver of the truck, upon suing Brecht, owner and driver of the sedan, met the latter’s counterclaim, upon which the jury found for Brecht and awarded him damages. For the reason stated in the other case, the order denying plaintiff’s blended motion must be affirmed.

So ordered.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

289 N.W. 829, 206 Minn. 598, 1940 Minn. LEXIS 720, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/derdoski-v-brecht-minn-1940.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack