State Ex Rel. Scherer v. Moriarty

295 N.W. 518, 209 Minn. 604, 1941 Minn. LEXIS 908
Supreme Court of Minnesota·Decided January 10, 1941·No. No. 32,792.·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam.

When the promise of two members of the court was given that an oral hearing would be granted respondent upon the alternative writ, neither the return nor petitioner’s traverse thereof had been examined. It is now apparent that petitioner’s fear that his cases would be continued over the term was unfounded. All parties interested in this matter will, upon sober reflection, reach the conclusion that a discussion of the situation in open court will not be conducive to a better understanding. More patience, consideration, and forbearance one with the other will bring the best results. It seems unnecessary to repeat what was said in State ex rel. Fickling v. Moriarty, 208 Minn. 469, 294 N. W. 473.

The alternative writ is discharged.

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

State Ex Rel. Scherer v. Moriarty, 295 N.W. 518, 209 Minn. 604, 1941 Minn. LEXIS 908 (Mich. 1941).

295 N.W. 518 (State Ex Rel. Scherer v. Moriarty) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

In Re Estate of Gelin
37 N.W.2d 538 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1949)
M. L. H. and R. E. U. L. No. 458 v. H. R. E. I. A.
1 N.W.2d 133 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1941)