Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
Judges
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
Judges

J.B. HAUGEN, Respondent, v. ARMOUR COMPANY, a Corporation, Appellant.

PER CURIAM.

The issues in this case are similar to those involved in the case of Olson v. Armour Co., decided at this term, ante, 272, 280 N.W. 200. In all, four cases were tried and appeal taken by the defendant in each case. Appellant says that the case of Olson v. Armour Co. is typical of all four cases. An examination of the record shows this to be correct. The same points are involved. The amount of damages allowed is the main issue.

This case, therefore, is controlled by the decision in Olson v. Armour Co. and for the reasons set forth in the opinion therein the judgment is affirmed.

CHRISTIANSON, Ch. J., and BURR and NUESSLE, JJ., concur.

MORRIS and SATHRE, JJ., dissent.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

HAUGEN v. ARMOUR CO
(Mar 29, 1938)