State v. Bradac
| Decision Date | 25 March 1960 |
| Docket Number | No. 37655,37655 |
| Citation | 102 N.W.2d 34,257 Minn. 467 |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
| Parties | STATE of Minnesota by Miles LORD, its Attorney General, Respondent, v. Frank S. BRADAC and Catherine M. Bradac, Appellants. |
Syllabus by the Court.
1. Despite errors of fundamental law or controlling principle, a trial court's charge to the jury becomes the law of the case and is not subject to attack or review on appeal when such fundamental errors have not been seasonably and adequately called to the attention of the trial court--such as by appropriate objection or exception--or have not, as a minimum requirement, been assigned for the first time as error in the motion for a new trial. Held, the fact that a condemnation proceeding is involved does not justify an exception to this rule.
2. Generally the only question to be reviewed on appeal from a judgment is whether the verdict is reasonably supported by the evidence. Held, under the evidence here, we cannot say that the verdicts are so excessively low that they are not justified by the evidence.
Robins, Davis & Lyons and Arnold M. Bellis, St. Paul, for appellants.
Miles Lord, Atty. Gen., Paul A. Skjervold, Deputy Atty. Gen., Rolf O. Slen, Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., for respondent.
Appeal from judgment of the district court in a condemnation proceeding.
The proceeding involves the taking of certain property of the appellants. The commissioners awarded $2,050 for parcel 16, which was taken in 1952, and awarded $456 for parcel 216, which was taken in 1955. On appeal to the district court the jury returned a verdict of $1,250 for parcel 16, and $675 for parcel 216. Appellant Frank S. Bradac represented himself in the district court as attorney pro se. During the course of the trial and subsequently, no exceptions were taken to the evidence introduced and no objections were made to the instructions given by the trial court, nor was any motion for a new trial entered.
On appeal here the appellants contend essentially two things, both involving the instructions given by the trial court; first, that the court committed prejudicial error in instructing the jury that it should consider any special benefits resulting to the remaining land and deduct the same from the amount of damages; second, that the court erred in failing to instruct the jury on the issue of damages due to a change of grade of Highway No. 36 and White Bear Avenue.
1. It is unnecessary to consider the merit of their contentions because we have held that despite errors of fundamental law or controlling principle, a trial court's charge to the jury becomes the law of the case and is not subject to attack or review on appeal when such fundamental errors have not been seasonably and adequately called to the attention of the trial court--such as by appropriate objection or exception--or have not, as a minimum requirement, been assigned for the first time as error in the motion for a new trial. Caballero v. Litchfield Wood-Working Co., Inc., 246 Minn. 124, 74 N.W.2d 404.
Appellants concede that this is the rule of law but argue that under the circumstances here, where substantive rights are involved, namely, the constitutional guarantee that they receive just...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State by Lord v. Pearson, 38072
...also, Johnson v. Chicago, B. & N.R. Co., 37 Minn. 519, 35 N.W. 438; 5 Nichols, Eminent Domain (3 ed.) § 18.1; State, by Lord v. Bradac, 257 Minn. 467, 102 N.W.2d 34; Minneapolis-St. Paul Sanitary Dist. v. Fitzpatrick, The appellant did not either in its motion for a new trial or in its assi......
-
State v. Weber-Connelly, Naegele, Inc.
...to be reviewed on appeal from a judgment is whether the decision is reasonably supported by the evidence. State v. Bradac, 257 Minn. 467, 469, 102 N.W.2d 34, 36 (1960). The appellate court will not disturb findings of the trial court unless they are clearly erroneous, "either without substa......
-
Daigle v. Twin City Ready Mix Concrete Company
...Co. v. Dirnberger, 192 Minn. 387, 256 N.W. 657; Adelmann v. Elk River Lbr. Co., 242 Minn. 388, 65 N.W.2d 661; State, by Lord, v. Bradac, 257 Minn. 467, 102 N.W.2d 34; Wozniak v. Luta, 258 Minn. 234, 103 N.W.2d 870; Olson v. Penkert, 252 Minn. 334, 90 N.W.2d 2. Here the court's instruction g......
-
Kilty v. Mutual of Omaha Ins. Co.
...is limited to a consideration of whether the evidence sustains the verdict under any applicable rule of law. State, by Lord, v. Bradac, 257 Minn. 467, 102 N.W.2d 34; Kedrowski v. Czech, 244 Minn. 111, 69 N.W.2d 337; Nelson v. Swedish Hospital, 241 Minn. 551, 64 N.W.2d 38; Phelan v. Carey, 2......