HYATT v. GULBRANSON

No. 45578.

241 N.W.2d 291 (1976)

Helen HYATT, Respondent, v. Dean GULBRANSON, et al., Appellants.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

March 12, 1976.


Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

Grose, Von Holtum, Von Holtum, Sieben & Schmidt and David R. Von Holtum, Worthington, for appellants.

Ruth & Peterson and Douglas L. Ruth, Owatonna, for respondent.

Heard before KELLY, MacLAUGHLIN, and YETKA, JJ., and considered and decided by the court en banc.


PER CURIAM.

Defendants appeal from an order of the district court denying their post-trial motions in this action for breach of contract. They argue: (1) The jury's special finding of no fraud on the part of the plaintiff is not supported by the evidence; and (2) the jury's finding of $1,500 special damages, remitted to zero by the trial court, indicates passion and prejudice justifying a new trial. We affirm.

Defendants alleged that plaintiff made three fraudulent...

Let's get started

Leagle.com

Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.

  • Updated daily.
  • Uncompromising quality.
  • Complete, Accurate, Current.

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases