Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Mohr v. Williams, 104 N.W. 12.

84 citing documents.

State v. Brown 932 N.W.2d 283 Minn. 2019
State v. Brown 932 N.W.2d 283 Minn. 2019
See Mohr v. Williams , 95 Minn. 261 , 104 N.W.
Haile v. Sutherland 598 N.W.2d 424 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
Haile v. Sutherland 598 N.W.2d 424 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
s but received total hip 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 , 104 N.W.
K.A.C. v. Benson 527 N.W.2d 553 Minn. 1995
K.A.C. v. Benson 527 N.W.2d 553 Minn. 1995
For example, in Mohr v. Williams, 95 Minn. 261 , 104 N.W.
Kohoutek v. Hafner 383 N.W.2d 295 Minn. 1986
Kohoutek v. Hafner 383 N.W.2d 295 Minn. 1986
In Mohr v. Williams, 95 Minn. 261 , 104 N.W.
Kinikin v. Heupel 305 N.W.2d 589 Minn. 1981
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 , 104 N.W.
Cornfeldt v. Tongen 262 N.W.2d 684 Minn. 1977
Cornfeldt v. Tongen 262 N.W.2d 684 Minn. 1977
See, Mohr v. Williams, 95 Minn. 261 , 104 N.W.
Haavig v. Hidding 214 N.W.2d 222 Minn. 1974
Haavig v. Hidding 214 N.W.2d 222 Minn. 1974
of whether a verdict 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
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
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
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
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
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 tr
Bang v. Charles T. Miller Hospital 88 N.W.2d 186 Minn. 1958
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.)