Norberg v. Pearson

Supreme Court of Minnesota

Norberg v. Pearson

159 N.W. 1095, 134 Minn. 481, 1916 Minn. LEXIS 700

CourtSupreme Court of Minnesota

DecidedNovember 24, 1916

DocketNos. 20,075—(131)

StatusPublished

This text of 159 N.W. 1095 (Norberg v. Pearson) 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

Norberg v. Pearson, 159 N.W. 1095, 134 Minn. 481, 1916 Minn. LEXIS 700 (Mich. 1916).

Pincite

Opinion

Pee Cubiam.

Action, for damages for negligence. The case was tried by a jury which found a verdict for the plaintiff. A motion was made for a new trial on the grounds of (a) surprise, and (b) newly discovered evidence. From a denial of the motion, defendants appeal.

An examination of the record satisfies us that this is not a case of “surprise” such as would justify a new trial. The trial court did not abuse its discretion by refusing to grant a new trial because of newly discovered evidence.

Order affirmed.

Brown, C. J., took no part.

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

Pee Cubiam.

Action, for damages for negligence. The case was tried by a jury which found a verdict for the plaintiff. A motion was made for a new trial on the grounds of (a) surprise, and (b) newly discovered evidence. From a denial of the motion, defendants appeal.

An examination of the record satisfies us that this is not a case of “surprise” such as would justify a new trial. The trial court did not abuse its discretion by refusing to grant a new trial because of newly discovered evidence.

Order affirmed.

Brown, C. J., took no part.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

159 N.W. 1095, 134 Minn. 481, 1916 Minn. LEXIS 700, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/norberg-v-pearson-minn-1916.