State v. Longyear Holding Co.
This text of 35 N.W.2d 291 (State v. Longyear Holding Co.) 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.
Opinion
The assignments of error raise the identical questions presented on the former appeal from an order dénying defendants’ motion for a new trial. State v. Longyear Holding Co. 224 Minn. 451, 29 N. W. (2d) 657. Where an order denying a new trial has been affirmed on appeal, all questions that might have been raised therein are set at rest and cannot be raised on a subsequent appeal from the judgment. School Dist. No. 1 v. Aiton, 175 Minn. 346, 348, 221 N. W. 424, 425; Skog v. Pomush, 221 Minn. 11, 20 N. W. (2d) 530; 1 Dunnell, Dig. & Supp. § 398.
Hence, the decision on the former appeal is decisive here.
Judgment affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
35 N.W.2d 291, 227 Minn. 255, 1948 Minn. LEXIS 666, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-longyear-holding-co-minn-1948.