DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Epstein v. Chicago Great Western Railway Co., 104 N.W. 12.

42 citing documents.

  • Ola Abdelaziz, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
    “If the physician advises his patient to submit to a particular operation, and the patient weighs the dangers and risks incid ent to its performance, and finally consents, [she] thereby, in effect, enters into a contract authorizing [her] physician to operate to the extent of the consent given, but no further.” Mohr v. Williams , (emphasis added).
  • State v. Brown 932 N.W.2d 283 Minn. 2019
    See Mohr v. Williams , 95 Minn. 261 , , 15 (1905) ("Consent ...
  • Haile v. Sutherland 598 N.W.2d 424 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
    p replacement); Pizzalotto v. Wilson, 437 So.2d 859, 865 (La.1983) (finding physician committed battery where patient consented to exploratory surgery, and physician removed reproductive organs); (permitting submission of battery claim where patient consented - to breast reduction and received mastectomy); Mohr v. Williams, 95 Minn. 261, 269-70 , (concluding physician committed battery by operating on patient’s left ear rather than right ear), overruled in part by Genzel v. Halvorson, 248 Minn.
  • K.A.C. v. Benson 527 N.W.2d 553 Minn. 1995
    For example, in Mohr v. Williams, 95 Minn. 261 , plaintiffs consent to surgery on her right ear did not authorize her doctor to operate on the left ear.
  • Kohoutek v. Hafner 383 N.W.2d 295 Minn. 1986
    In Mohr v. Williams, 95 Minn. 261 , we recognized that a claim of battery lies against a physician who performs a medical procedure on a patient without his or her consent.
  • Kinikin v. Heupel 305 N.W.2d 589 Minn. 1981
    It would seem battery is better utilized in the classic situation of a touching of a substantially and obviously different kind, such as operating on one ear when the patient’s consent is given for the other, as in Mohr v. Williams, 95 Minn. 261 , or where the patient consents to exploratory surgery and the doctor performs a mastectomy, as in Corn v. French, 71 Nev.
  • Cornfeldt v. Tongen 262 N.W.2d 684 Minn. 1977
    See, Mohr v. Williams, 95 Minn. 261 , overruled on other grounds; Bang v. Charles T. Miller Hospital, 251 Minn. 427 , Genzel v. Halvorson, 248 Minn. 527
  • Haavig v. Hidding 214 N.W.2d 222 Minn. 1974
    erdict is adequate is addressed in the first instance to the sound discretion of the trial court, and its action will not be reversed on appeal except for a clear abuse of discretion.” Smith v. Rekucki, 287 Minn. 149, 156 , Berg v. Ullevig, 244 Minn. 390 , Litman v. Walso, 211 Minn. 398 , Mohr v. Williams, 95 Minn. 261
  • Smith v. Rekucki 177 N.W.2d 410 Minn. 1970
    Mohr v. Williams, 95 Minn. 261 , , 1 L. R. A. (N. S.) *157 439; Litman v. Walso, 211 Minn. 398 , 1 N. W. (2d) 391 ; Berg v. Ullevig, 244 Minn. 390 , 70 N. W. (2d) 133 .
  • Campbell v. Glenwood Hills Hospitals, Inc. 142 N.W.2d 255 Minn. 1966
    We have given consideration to the cases upon which plaintiff relies including Chandler v. Fretag, 348 U. S. 3 , 75 S. Ct. 1 , 99 L. ed. 4; Lewis v. Brautigam (5 Cir.) 227 F. (2d) 124; Mohr v. Williams, 95 Minn. 261 , , 1 L. R. A. (N. S.) 439; and State ex rel.
  • Backman v. Fitch 137 N.W.2d 574 Minn. 1965
    Mohr v. Williams, 95 Minn. 261 , , 1 L. R. A. (N.S.)
  • Krueger v. Knutson 111 N.W.2d 526 Minn. 1961
    (3 ed.) § 7133; Mohr v. Williams, 95 Minn. 261 , , 1 L. R. A. (N. S.) 439; Litman v. Walso, 211 Minn. 398 , 1 N. W. (2d) 391 .
  • State v. Pearson 110 N.W.2d 206 Minn. 1961
    This court in Mohr v. Williams, 95 Minn. 261, 266 , , 1 L. R. A. (N. S.) 439, commenting upon excessive or inadequate damages, said: “But in any case, whether a new trial upon the ground of excessive or inadequate damages should be granted or refused, or whether the verdict should be reduced, rests in the sound judicial discretion of the *486 trial court * * * in r
  • Bang v. Charles T. Miller Hospital 88 N.W.2d 186 Minn. 1958
    A leading case in this jurisdiction followed by other jurisdictions in this country 1 is Mohr v. Williams, 95 Minn. 261 , .
  • Genzel v. Halvorson 80 N.W.2d 854 Minn. 1957
    The defendants consented, and on appeal by the plaintiff, this court affirmed the lower court, stating as follows ( 34 Minn. 110 , ): *533 “* * * It is the same in principle as an order directing an excess to be remitted from a verdict.” In Mohr v. Williams, 95 Minn. 261, 267 , , 1 L.R.A.
  • Knox v. City of Granite Falls 72 N.W.2d 67 Minn. 1955
    In the leading case of Mohr v. Williams, 95 Minn. 261 , , 1 L.R.A.
  • Berg v. Ullevig 70 N.W.2d 133 Minn. 1955
    Mohr v. Williams, 95 Minn. 261 , , 1 L.R.A.
  • Gilbertson v. Gross 45 N.W.2d 547 Minn. 1951
    Ott v. Tri-State T. & T. Co. 127 Minn. 373 , ; Mohr v. Williams, 95 Minn. 261 , , 1 L.R.A.(N.S.)
  • True v. Older 34 N.W.2d 700 Minn. 1948
    6 C. J. S., *157 Assault and Battery, § 16; Mohr v. Williams, 95 Minn. 261 , , 1 L.R.A.(N.S.)
  • Gordon v. Pappas 34 N.W.2d 293 Minn. 1948
    The contention that the verdict is so excessive as to demonstrate that it was the result of passion and prejudice, under the rule of Mohr v. Williams, 95 Minn. 261, 266 , , 1 L.R.A.(N.S.)
  • Fewell v. Tappan 27 N.W.2d 648 Minn. 1947
    398 ,) does not apply.” In Mohr v. Williams, 95 Minn. 261, 262 , , 1 L.R.A.
  • Maas v. Midway Chevrolet Co. 18 N.W.2d 233 Minn. 1945
    As said by this court in Mohr v. Williams, 95 Minn. 261, 266 , , 1 L.R.A.(N.S.)
  • Litman v. Walso 1 N.W.2d 391 Minn. 1941
    As said by this court in Mohr v. Williams, 95 Minn. 261, 266 , , 1 L.R.A.(N.S.)
  • Ross v. Duluth, Missabe & Iron Range Railway Co. 290 N.W. 566 Minn. 1940
    It was held in Mohr v. Williams, 95 Minn. 261, 266 , , 1 L.R.A.
  • Nelson v. Nicollet Clinic 276 N.W. 801 Minn. 1937
    He relies upon Mohr v. Williams, 95 Minn. 261 , , 1 L.R.A.
  • Wright v. Engelbert 259 N.W. 75 Minn. 1935
    “Excessive or insufficient damages, appearing to have been given under the influence of passion or prejudice.” Mohr v. Williams, 95 Minn. 261 , , 1 L.R.A.(N.S.)
  • Lundblad v. Erickson 230 N.W. 473 Minn. 1930
    Craig v. Cook, 28 Minn. 232 , ; Grant v. Wolf, 34 Minn. 32 , ; Pratt v. Pioneer-Press Co. 35 Minn. 251 , ; Mohr v. Williams, 95 Minn. 261 , , 1 L.R.A.(N.S.)
  • Boyle v. Boileau 219 N.W. 866 Minn. 1928
    Nelson v. Village of West Duluth, 55 Minn. 497 , ; Mohr v. Williams, 95 Minn. 261 , , 1 L.R.A.(N.S.)
  • Hillstrom v. Mannheimer Bros. 178 N.W. 881 Minn. 1920
    Mohr v. Williams, 95 Minn. 261 , , 1 L.R.A.(N.S.)
  • Johnson v. Wolf 172 N.W. 216 Minn. 1919
    Mohr v. Williams, 95 Minn. 261 , , 1 L.R.A.(N.S.)
  • Leonard v. Rosendahl 158 N.W. 419 Minn. 1916
    State v. Shevlin-Carpenter Co. 66 Minn. 217 , ; Emerson v. Pacific Coast & N. P. Co. 92 Minn. 523 , ; Mohr v. Williams, 95 Minn. 261 , , 1 L.R.A.
  • Ott v. Tri-State Telephone & Telegraph Co. 149 N.W. 544 Minn. 1914
    Co. 53 Minn. 341 , ; Mohr v. Williams, 95 Minn. 261 , , 1 L.R.A.(N.S.)
  • Kerling v. G. W. Van Dusen & Co. 129 N.W. 1048 Minn. 1911
    Mohr v. Williams, 95 Minn. 261 , , 1 L.R.A.(N.S.)
  • Hirsch v. Bayne 127 N.W. 389 Minn. 1910
    Mohr v. Williams, 95 Minn. 261 , , 1 L.R.A.(N.S.)
  • Halness v. Anderson 124 N.W. 830 Minn. 1910
    Mohr v. Williams, 95 Minn. 261, 266 , , 1 L.R.A.(N.S.)
  • Schmidt v. Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway Co. 122 N.W. 9 Minn. 1909
    Mohr v. Williams, 95 Minn. 261 , , 1 L. R. A. (N. S.) 439, 111 Am.
  • Alton v. Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway Co. 120 N.W. 749 Minn. 1909
    See Mohr v. Williams, 95 Minn. 261 , , 1 L. R. A. (N. S.) 439, 111 Am.
  • Goss v. Goss 113 N.W. 690 Minn. 1907
    Craig v. Cook, 28 Minn. 232 , ; Grant v. Wolf, 34 Minn. 32 , ; Pratt v. Pioneer Press Co., 35 Minn. 251 , ; Hall v. Chicago, B. & N. R. Co., 46 Minn. 439 , ; Mohr v. Williams, 95 Minn. 261 , , 1 L. R. A. (N. S.) 439, 11 Am.
  • Cornell v. Hendrickson 110 N.W. 1132 Minn. 1907
    The order is affirmed, under the rule of Hicks v. Stone, 13 Minn. 398 (434), and Mohr v. Williams, 95 Minn. 261 , , 1 L. R. A. (N. S.) 439.
  • Ford v. Minneapolis Street Railway Co. 107 N.W. 817 Minn. 1906
    § 1024; Marsh v. Minneapolis Brewing Co., supra; Mohr v. Williams, 95 Minn. 261 , .
  • McKnight v. Minneapolis, St. Paul & Sault Ste. Marie Railway Co. 105 N.W. 673 Minn. 1905
    Craig v. Cook, 28 Minn. 232 , ; Pratt v. Pioneer Press Co., 32 Minn. 217 , , ; Mohr v. Williams, 95 Minn. 261 , .
  • English v. Minneapolis & St. Paul Suburban Railway Co. 104 N.W. 886 Minn. 1905
    tion for new trial on the ground of excessive or inadequate damages should be made under the fourth subdivision of section 5398, G. S. 1894; and in such cases the court will not interfere with the verdict unless the damages awarded appear clearly to be excessive or inadequate, as the case may be, and to have been given under the influence of passion or prejudice.” Mohr v. Williams, 95 Minn. 261 , .