DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Mankato Mills Co. v. Willard, 102 N.W. 202.

31 citing documents.

  • Johnson v. Engen 386 N.W.2d 269 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
  • Johnson v. Engen 386 N.W.2d 269 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
    See Mankato Mills Co. v. Willard, 94 Minn. 160, 164 , 102 N.W.
  • State v. Tereau 229 N.W.2d 27 Minn. 1975
  • State v. Tereau 229 N.W.2d 27 Minn. 1975
    Mankato Mills Co. v. Willard, 94 Minn. 160
  • Winona National & Savings Bank v. Sheehan 222 N.W.2d 92 Minn. 1974
  • In Re Estate of Lea 222 N.W.2d 92 Minn. 1974
  • Winona National & Savings Bank v. Sheehan 222 N.W.2d 92 Minn. 1974
    Mankato Mills Co. v. Willard, 94 Minn. 160 , *260 (1905); Bjerketvedt v. Jacobson, 232 Minn. 152 , Werner v. Miller, 248 Minn. 75 , Rule 61, Rules of Civil Procedure.
  • In Re Estate of Lea 222 N.W.2d 92 Minn. 1974
    Mankato Mills Co. v. Willard, 94 Minn. 160 , 102 N.W.
  • Johnson v. Johnson 97 N.W.2d 279 Minn. 1959
  • Johnson v. Johnson 97 N.W.2d 279 Minn. 1959
    4 See, Mankato Mills Co. v. Willard, 94 Minn. 160 , .
  • Pearson v. Bertelson 81 N.W.2d 66 Minn. 1957
  • Pearson v. Bertelson 81 N.W.2d 66 Minn. 1957
    See, also, Pump-It, Inc. v. Alexander, 230 Minn. 564 , 42 N. W. (2d) 337 ; Mankato Mills Co. v. Willard, 94 Minn. 160 , .
  • Bystrom v. Palmer 57 N.W.2d 409 Minn. 1953
  • Bystrom v. Palmer 57 N.W.2d 409 Minn. 1953
    The applicable rule is well expressed in Mankato Mills Co. v. Willard, 94 Minn. 160, 164 , , as follows: “* * * where issues of fact are tried by the court without a jury, and incompetent evidence is admitted, but the competent evidence is sufficient to support the findings of fact, and there is no reasonable ground for inferring from the character of the incompetent evidence that
  • Bjerketvedt v. Jacobson 44 N.W.2d 775 Minn. 1950
  • Bjerketvedt v. Jacobson 44 N.W.2d 775 Minn. 1950
    Mankato Mills Co. v. Willard, 94 Minn. 160 , .
  • Physicians & Hospitals Supply Co. v. Johnson 44 N.W.2d 224 Minn. 1950
  • Physicians & Hospitals Supply Co. v. Johnson 44 N.W.2d 224 Minn. 1950
    The fact that the court may have received incompetent evidence in support of the items enumerated (a question we need not decide) does not vitiate its finding, based on competent and compelling evidence under the rule of Mankato Mills Co. v. Willard, 94 Minn. 160 , ; Pump-It, Inc. v. Alexander, 230 Minn. 564 , 42 N. W. (2d) 337 .
  • Pump-It, Inc. v. Alexander 42 N.W.2d 337 Minn. 1950
  • Pump-It, Inc. v. Alexander 42 N.W.2d 337 Minn. 1950
    This distinction was well explained in Mankato Mills Co. v. Willard, 94 Minn. 160, 164 , , where this court said: “If the trial of the issues of fact had been by a jury, the admission of the incompetent evidence would have been reversible error, for the evidence related to a material issue, and, the court having admitted *573 the evidence, the jury would have been bound to consid
  • Sullivan v. Brown 31 N.W.2d 439 Minn. 1948
  • Sullivan v. Brown 31 N.W.2d 439 Minn. 1948
    The distinction with reference to the admissibility of evidence between cases tried before a court and those tried before a jury was well defined in Mankato Mills Co. v. Willard, 94 Minn. 160, 164 , , where this court said: “If the trial of the issues of fact had been by a jury, the admission of the incompetent evidence would have been reversible error, for the evidence related to a material issue, and, the court having admitted the evidence, the jury would have been bound to consider it
  • Fleetham v. Lindgren 22 N.W.2d 637 Minn. 1946
  • Fleetham v. Lindgren 22 N.W.2d 637 Minn. 1946
    The applicable rule is well expressed in Mankato Mills Co. v. Willard, 94 Minn. 160, 164 , , 203: “* * * where issues of fact are tried by the court without a jury, and incompetent evidence is admitted, but the competent evidence is sufficient to support the findings of fact, and there is no reasonable ground for inferring from the character of the incompetent -evidence that it was or m
  • Wilkins v. Sublette 126 N.W. 1089 Minn. 1910
  • Fallon v. Fallon 124 N.W. 994 Minn. 1910
  • Fallon v. Fallon 124 N.W. 994 Minn. 1910
    Mankato Mills Co. v. Willard, 94 Minn. 160 , .
  • American Bridge Co. v. American District Steam Co. 119 N.W. 783 Minn. 1909
  • American Bridge Co. v. American District Steam Co. 119 N.W. 783 Minn. 1909
    Mankato Mills Co. v. Willard, 94 Minn. 160 , .
  • Bernick v. McClure 119 N.W. 247 Minn. 1909
  • Bernick v. McClure 119 N.W. 247 Minn. 1909
    See Mankato Mills Co. v. Willard, 94 Minn. 160 , .