Weber Electric Company v. Tuminelly, Inc.

206 N.W.2d 656, 296 Minn. 488, 1973 Minn. LEXIS 1238
Supreme Court of Minnesota·Decided April 20, 1973·No. 43564·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam.

This is an appeal by a third-party defendant, Dorso Trailer Sales, Inc., from an order denying it a new trial. The only issue is whether it was *489 error not to grant appellant a jury trial. We hold that it was and reverse.

It is undisputed that both a jury trial and a court trial were designated in various notes of issue. Although the respondent third-party plaintiff supports appellant’s contention that appellant had specifically asked the court for a jury trial, the court had no recollection of the motion and the record was silent on the subject.

Rule 38.01, Rules of Civil Procedure, entitled the parties to a jury trial unless the right was waived under Rule 38.02. The latter provision specifies the manner of waiver as follows:

“In actions arising on contract, and by permission of the court in other actions, any party thereto may waive a jury trial in the manner following:
(1) By failing to appear at the trial;
(2) By written consent, by the party or his attorney, filed with the clerk;
(3) By oral consent in open court, entered in the minutes.”

Under the circumstances, we conclude that the appellant has not consented to waive a jury and should have been granted a new trial.

Reversed.

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

Weber Electric Company v. Tuminelly, Inc., 206 N.W.2d 656, 296 Minn. 488, 1973 Minn. LEXIS 1238 (Mich. 1973).

206 N.W.2d 656 (Weber Electric Company v. Tuminelly, Inc.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Schweich v. Ziegler, Inc.
463 N.W.2d 722 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1990)
Peterson v. Steinmaus
393 N.W.2d 693 (Court of Appeals of Minnesota, 1986)