BOWMAN v. PAMIDA, INC.

No. 47496.

261 N.W.2d 594 (1977)

Anna BOWMAN, et al., Appellants, v. PAMIDA, INC., et al., defendants and third party plaintiffs, Respondents, v. H. G. HARVEY COMPANY, Third-Party Defendant.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

December 23, 1977.


Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

William R. Ojala, Gilbert, for appellants.

Trenti, Saxhaug, Berger, Carey, Roche, Stephenson & Richards, and Tom H. Carey, Virginia, for respondents.

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


ROGOSHESKE, Justice.

The dispositive question raised by plaintiffs on appeal is whether the trial court lacked jurisdiction under Rule 59.03, Rules of Civil Procedure, to hear and rule upon defendants' post-trial motion for a new trial on damages, or in the alternative a remittitur, where notice of the motion was served on plaintiffs 25 days after service of notice on defendants by plaintiffs of the filing of the court order directing entry of judgment. We hold that...

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