Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Martin v. Walter Courtney, 77 N.W. 813.

39 citing documents.

Hoffman v. Naslund 144 N.W.2d 580 Minn. 1966
Hoffman v. Naslund 144 N.W.2d 580 Minn. 1966
Harju v. Allen, 146 Minn. 23 , ; Martin v. Courtney, 75 Minn. 255 , ; Yates v. Gamble, 198 Minn. 7 , ; Miller v. Raaen, 273 Minn. 109 , 139 N. W. (2d) 877 .
Miller v. Raaen 139 N.W.2d 877 Minn. 1966
Miller v. Raaen 139 N.W.2d 877 Minn. 1966
Harju v. Allen, 146 *114 Minn. 23, ; Martin v. Courtney, 75 Minn. 255 , ; Yates v. Gamble, 198 Minn. 7 , .
Lee v. Zaske 6 N.W.2d 793 Minn. 1942
Wolfangel v. Prudential Insurance Co. of America 296 N.W. 576 Minn. 1941
Wolfangel v. Prudential Insurance Co. of America 296 N.W. 576 Minn. 1941
C f. Martin v. Courtney, 75 Minn. 255 , .
National Pole & Treating Co. v. Gilkey 233 N.W. 810 Minn. 1930
National Pole & Treating Co. v. Gilkey 233 N.W. 810 Minn. 1930
Ohlson v. Manderfeld, 28 Minn. 390 , ; Voge v. Penney, 74 Minn. 525 , ; Martin v. Courtney, 75 Minn. 255 , ; Messenger v. St.
Minneapolis Electric Lamp Co. v. Federal Holding Co. 221 N.W. 645 Minn. 1928
Minneapolis Electric Lamp Co. v. Federal Holding Co. 221 N.W. 645 Minn. 1928
Voge v. Penney, 74 Minn. 525 , ; Martin v. Courtney, 75 Minn. 255 , ; Bartroot v. St.
Nelson v. Dahl 219 N.W. 941 Minn. 1928
Nelson v. Dahl 219 N.W. 941 Minn. 1928
Martin v. Courtney, 75 Minn. 255, 261 , ; Moehlenbrock v. Parke, Davis & Co. 145 Minn. 100 , ; Clark v. George, 148 Minn. 52 , ; Berkholz v. Benepe, 153 Minn. 335 , .
Maher v. Duluth Yellow Cab Co. 215 N.W. 678 Minn. 1927
Maher v. Duluth Yellow Cab Co. 215 N.W. 678 Minn. 1927
Ohlson v. Manderfeld, 28 Minn. 390 , ; Voge v. Penney, 74 Minn. 525 , ; Martin v. Courtney, 75 Minn. 255 , ; Messenger v. St.
Berkholz v. Benepe 190 N.W. 800 Minn. 1922
Berkholz v. Benepe 190 N.W. 800 Minn. 1922
Getcliell v. Hill, 21 Minn. 464 ; Martin v. Courtney, 75 Minn. 255 , ; Staloch v. Holm, 100 Minn. 276 , Ill N. W. 264, 9 L. R. A. (N. S.) 712; McGray v. Cobb, 130 Minn. 434 , , ; Viita v. Fleming, 132 Minn. 128 , , L. R. A. 1916D, 644, Ann. Cas.
Clark v. George 180 N.W. 1011 Minn. 1921
Clark v. George 180 N.W. 1011 Minn. 1921
Getchell v. Hill, 21 Minn. 464 ; Martin v. Courtney, 75 Minn. 255 , ; Staloch v. Holm, 100 Minn. 276 , , 9 L.R.A.(N.S.)
Harju v. Allen 177 N.W. 1015 Minn. 1920
Harju v. Allen 177 N.W. 1015 Minn. 1920
For example a nonprofessional observer may not ordinarily diagnose disease, Martin v. Courtney, 87 Minn. 197, 203 , ; the standards of practice in different schools of medicine must be established by the testimony of experts of those schools, Martin v. Courtney, 75 Minn. 255 , ; and generally with respect to matters of science or specialized art, Moratzky v. Wirth, 74 Minn. 146 , , or with respect to matters resting upon pure theory, judgment, and opinion, based upon reasons familiar only to exp
Moehlenbrock v. Parke, Davis & Co. 176 N.W. 169 Minn. 1920
Moehlenbrock v. Parke, Davis & Co. 176 N.W. 169 Minn. 1920
Getchell v. Hill, 21 Minn. 464 ; Martin v. Courtney, 75 Minn. 255 , .
Keiper v. Anderson 165 N.W. 237 Minn. 1917
Keiper v. Anderson 165 N.W. 237 Minn. 1917
The same may be said of *401 Martin v. Courtney, 75 Minn. 255 , ; 87 Minn. 197 , .
Viita v. Fleming 155 N.W. 1077 Minn. 1916
Viita v. Fleming 155 N.W. 1077 Minn. 1916
We do not see that Martin v. Courtney, 75 Minn. 255 , ; 87 Minn. 197 , , or Staloch v. Holm, 100 Minn. 276 , , 9 L.R.A.
Hill v. Jones 123 N.W. 927 Minn. 1909
Hill v. Jones 123 N.W. 927 Minn. 1909
Co., 77 Minn. 34 , , and Martin v. Courtney, 75 Minn. 256 , , a new trial should have been granted.
Peterson v. Chicago Great Western Railway Co. 118 N.W. 1016 Minn. 1908
Peterson v. Chicago Great Western Railway Co. 118 N.W. 1016 Minn. 1908
Voge v. Penney, 74 Minn. 525 , ; Martin v. Courtney, 75 Minn. 255, 262 , ; Messenger v. St.
Staloch v. Holm 111 N.W. 264 Minn. 1907
Staloch v. Holm 111 N.W. 264 Minn. 1907
529, 29 N. E. 313 , 14 L. R. A. 429; Martin v. Courtney, 75 Minn. 255 , .
Henslin v. Wheaton 97 N.W. 882 Minn. 1904
Henslin v. Wheaton 97 N.W. 882 Minn. 1904
Defendants objected to all such evidence on the ground that the witness was not a physician and surgeon, and was incompetent to testify against them, under the rule announced in the case of Martin v. Courtney, 75 Minn. 255 , , which objection the court sustained.
Martin v. Courtney 91 N.W. 487 Minn. 1902
Martin v. Courtney 91 N.W. 487 Minn. 1902
Martin v. Walter Courtney 83 N.W. 503 Minn. 1900
Martin v. Walter Courtney 83 N.W. 503 Minn. 1900
Martin v. Courtney, 75 Minn. 255 , .