Minnesota Statutes
Minn. Stat. § 605.06 (2026)
[Repealed]
✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
MN-REVrevisor.mn.gov (official)
Justiaon Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
[Repealed, 1963 c 806 s 18]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 10
cases, 1942–1989 · leading case: Wilcox v. Schloner, 23 N.W.2d 19 (Minn. 1946).
Wilcox v. Schloner, 23 N.W.2d 19 (Minn. 1946). “1941, § 605.06 (Mason St. 1927, § 9495), his motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict was unauthorized and contrary to law.”
Bolstad v. Paul Bunyan Oil Co., 9 N.W.2d 346 (Minn. 1943). “1941, § 605.06 (Mason St. 1927, § 9495), for judgment notwithstanding the disagreement of the jury.”
Leitner v. Pac. Gamble Robinson Co., 26 N.W.2d 228 (Minn. 1947). “The only question here is whether, as claimed by defendants, the trial court erred in denying their motion for a new trial.”
Kugling v. Williamson, 42 N.W.2d 534 (Minn. 1950). “Pursuant to § 605.06, a motion for a directed verdict at the close of all the testimony 3 is a prerequisite to the making of a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict.”
Lee v. Zaske, 6 N.W.2d 793 (Minn. 1942). “1927, § 9495), and in effect direct judgment notwithstanding the verdict on the decisive issue of negligence, and this in favor of a party who made no motion for a directed verdict during the trial and who in her motion after verdict specifically asked for “a new trial of all of…”
Allison v. Chicago Great W. Ry. Co., 62 N.W.2d 374 (Minn. 1954). “While it does not literally construe § 605.06, in the interests of consistency we must adhere to it.”
Raspler v. Seng, 11 N.W.2d 440 (Minn. 1943). “The verdict does not indicate whether it was predicated on the account or on the account stated. Thereafter defendant moved for judgment notwithstanding the verdict or for a new trial.”
Schaumburg v. Ludwig, 60 N.W.2d 12 (Minn. 1953). “It is our opinion that the appeal should be dismissed.”
Johnson v. Whitney, 14 N.W.2d 765 (Minn. 1944). “The jury returned a verdict for plaintiff for $2,500, and defendant appealed from an order denying his alternative motion for judgment or a new trial. The order denying defendant’s motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict cannot be considered on this appeal, since no…”
Berney v. United Hosp., 442 N.W.2d 857 (Minn. Ct. App. 1989). “Since the statute has been repealed and the rule has been modified, these cases are no longer controlling.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.