In Re Application Rerat

Supreme Court of Minnesota

In Re Application Rerat

35 N.W.2d 291, 227 Minn. 248, 1948 Minn. LEXIS 664

CourtSupreme Court of Minnesota

DecidedDecember 24, 1948

DocketNo. 34,475.

StatusPublished

This text of 35 N.W.2d 291 (In Re Application Rerat) 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

In Re Application Rerat, 35 N.W.2d 291, 227 Minn. 248, 1948 Minn. LEXIS 664 (Mich. 1948).

Pincite

Opinions

Pee Curiam.

This is an application by the petitioner to open the above proceeding to present additional evidence before the Honorable Rol E. Barron, the referee, whose report now before us is based upon evidence introduced at a hearing extending from March 8 to April 1, 1948. After careful consideration of the proposed evidence relative to charges presented to the referee, we conclude that such evidence would not change the findings of the referee, before whom the principal proposed witness’s deposition was read upon the hear *249 ing and who has already indicated that such witness is not entitled to credence. If as suggested by counsel the petitioner has evidence in support of additional charges, the obvious relief as to such charges is to file a petition covering them.

Application denied.

1

Reported in 35 N. W. (2d) 291.

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

Pee Curiam.

This is an application by the petitioner to open the above proceeding to present additional evidence before the Honorable Rol E. Barron, the referee, whose report now before us is based upon evidence introduced at a hearing extending from March 8 to April 1, 1948. After careful consideration of the proposed evidence relative to charges presented to the referee, we conclude that such evidence would not change the findings of the referee, before whom the principal proposed witness’s deposition was read upon the hear *249 ing and who has already indicated that such witness is not entitled to credence. If as suggested by counsel the petitioner has evidence in support of additional charges, the obvious relief as to such charges is to file a petition covering them.

Application denied.

1

Reported in 35 N. W. (2d) 291.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

35 N.W.2d 291, 227 Minn. 248, 1948 Minn. LEXIS 664, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-application-rerat-minn-1948.