Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Wittenberg v. Onsgard, 81 N.W. 14.

30 citing documents.

Mohammad Sonbol v. Green and White Taxi Cab Company, Inc. Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Mohammad Sonbol v. Green and White Taxi Cab Company, Inc. Minn. Ct. App. 2016
The district court, in its discretion, may allow a party to withdraw his waiver of a jury trial, “at least where the withdrawal will not prejudice the opposite party.” Wittenberg v. Onsgard, 78 Minn. 342, 348, 81 N.W.
State of Minnesota v. Antoine Rumel Little 851 N.W.2d 878 Minn. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Antoine Rumel Little 851 N.W.2d 878 Minn. 2014
117, 118 (1893); see also Wittenberg v. Onsgard, 78 Minn. 342, 348 , 81 N.W.
Gaulke v. State 184 N.W.2d 599 Minn. 1971
Gaulke v. State 184 N.W.2d 599 Minn. 1971
pra, and in the strikingly similar fact situation where the defendant had consented to trial before a jury of 11 rather than 12, this court, in State v. Sackett, 39 Minn. 69, 72 , , stated that an accused could waive trial by jury only “within such limits as the trial court, exercising a sound discretion in behalf of those before it, may permit.” Later, in Wittenberg v. Onsgard, 78 Minn. 342 , , a civil case for medical malpractice, Mr. Justice Mitchell wrote that the court may disregard the wai
Wasmund v. Nunamaker 151 N.W.2d 577 Minn. 1967
Wasmund v. Nunamaker 151 N.W.2d 577 Minn. 1967
redress, it is within the power of the trial court, in the exercise of a sound discretion, in proper cases, upon an application reasonably made, under proper safeguards designed to preserve the rights of both parties, to order such an inspection, and to require the plaintiff to submit' to it under the penalty of having his action dismissed in case he refuses to do so.” See, Wittenberg v. Onsgard, 78 Minn. 342 , , 47 L. R. A. 141; Aske v. Duluth & I. R. R. Co. 83 Minn. 197 , ; Rief v. G. N. R
Hill v. Hietala 128 N.W.2d 745 Minn. 1964
Hill v. Hietala 128 N.W.2d 745 Minn. 1964
The issue has been discussed in Wittenberg v. Onsgard, 78 Minn. 342 , , 47 L. R. A. 141, where we sustained a refusal to allow defendant to take X rays of plaintiff’s injured neck.
Grapentin v. Harvey 114 N.W.2d 578 Minn. 1962
Grapentin v. Harvey 114 N.W.2d 578 Minn. 1962
Wittenberg v. Onsgard, 78 Minn. 342 , , 47 L. R. A. 141; 2 Wigmore, Evidence (3 ed.) § 682.
Kenney v. Chicago Great Western Railway Co. 71 N.W.2d 669 Minn. 1955
Kenney v. Chicago Great Western Railway Co. 71 N.W.2d 669 Minn. 1955
5 As this court stated in Wittenberg v. Onsgard, 78 Minn. 342, 347 , , 47 L. R. A. 141: *288 “* * * All hypothetical questions must be based upon facts admitted or established, or which, if controverted, might legitimately be found by the jury from the evidence.
Briggs v. Chicago Great Western Railway Co. 57 N.W.2d 572 Minn. 1953
Briggs v. Chicago Great Western Railway Co. 57 N.W.2d 572 Minn. 1953
But, for the purpose of testing the qualifications, as well as the credibility, of an expert, it is generally held, as in Wittenberg v. Onsgard, 78 Minn. 342 , , 47 L. R. A. 141, that when the witness has testified that the a/wthorities support his view, he may be asked on cross-examination whether a medical work, admitted by him to be a standard authority, does not express a contrary view.” (Italics supplied.)
Smith v. Twin City Motor Bus Co. 36 N.W.2d 22 Minn. 1949
Smith v. Twin City Motor Bus Co. 36 N.W.2d 22 Minn. 1949
Wittenberg v. Onsgard, 78 Minn. 342 , , 47 L. R. A. 141.
Schaedler v. New York Life Insurance 276 N.W. 235 Minn. 1937
Schaedler v. New York Life Insurance 276 N.W. 235 Minn. 1937
The other cases cited are Wittenberg v. Onsgard, 78 Minn. 342 , , 47 L. R. A. 141; Frigstad v. G. N. Ry.
Ruud v. Hendrickson 222 N.W. 904 Minn. 1929
Ruud v. Hendrickson 222 N.W. 904 Minn. 1929
Wittenberg v. Onsgard, 78 Minn. 342 , , 47 L. R. A. 141; Landro v. G. N. Ry.
Van House v. Canadian Northern Railway Co. 192 N.W. 493 Minn. 1923
Van House v. Canadian Northern Railway Co. 192 N.W. 493 Minn. 1923
Wittenberg v. Onsgard, 78 Minn. 342 , , 47 L. R. A. 141; Boelter v. Ross Lbr.
Harju v. Allen 177 N.W. 1015 Minn. 1920
Harju v. Allen 177 N.W. 1015 Minn. 1920
Wittenberg v. Onsgard, 78 Minn. 342 , , 47 L.R.A.
Moehlenbrock v. Parke, Davis & Co. 169 N.W. 541 Minn. 1918
Moehlenbrock v. Parke, Davis & Co. 169 N.W. 541 Minn. 1918
Eespondent attempts to justify the ruling by a well recognized exception referred to in Wittenberg v. Onsgard, 78 Minn. 342 , , 47 L. R. A. 14, and thus formulated in City of Bloomington v. Shrock, 110 Ill.
Landro v. Great Northern Railway Co. 135 N.W. 991 Minn. 1912
Landro v. Great Northern Railway Co. 135 N.W. 991 Minn. 1912
But, for the purpose of testing the qualifications, as well as the credibility, of an expert, it is generally held, as in Wittenberg v. Onsgard, 78 Minn. 342 , , 47 L.R.A.