DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite O'Leary v. Wangensteen, 221 N.W. 430.

135 citing documents.

  • State of Minnesota v. Nicholas James Firkus Minn. 2026
  • State of Minnesota v. Nicholas James Firkus Minn. 2026
    It is well-established precedent that the positive testimony of an unimpeached witness “cannot be arbitrarily disregarded by either court or jury, for reasons resting wholly in their own minds, and not based upon anything appearing on the trial.” See O’
  • In the Matter of the Welfare of the Child of: D. L. P. and J. A. P., Parents Minn. Ct. App. 2024
  • In the Matter of the Welfare of the Child of: D. L. P. and J. A. P., Parents Minn. Ct. App. 2024
    cannot disregard the positive testimony of an unimpeached witness unless and until its probability or inconsistency furnishes a reasonable ground for so doing.” O’
  • Axelberg v. Commissioner of Public Safety 848 N.W.2d 206 Minn. 2014
  • Petersen v. Kidd 400 N.W.2d 413 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
  • Petersen v. Kidd 400 N.W.2d 413 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
    See O’Leary v. Wangensteen, 175 Minn. 368, 370-71 , 221 N.W.
  • Ruppert v. Milwaukee Mutual Insurance Co. 392 N.W.2d 550 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
  • Ruppert v. Milwaukee Mutual Insurance Co. 392 N.W.2d 550 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
    It cannot be arbitrarily disregarded by either court or jury for reasons resting wholly in their own minds and not based upon anything appearing on the trial.” O’Leary v. Wangensteen, 175 Minn. 368, 370 , 221 N.W.
  • Fidelity Bank & Trust Co. v. Fitzimons 261 N.W.2d 586 Minn. 1977
  • Fidelity Bank & Trust Co. v. Fitzimons 261 N.W.2d 586 Minn. 1977
    8 It has been well settled in Minnesota since O’Leary v. Wangensteen, 175 Minn. 368 , 221 N.W.
  • Frey v. Montgomery Ward & Co., Inc. 258 N.W.2d 782 Minn. 1977
  • Frey v. Montgomery Ward & Co., Inc. 258 N.W.2d 782 Minn. 1977
    Nelson v. Ackerman, 249 Minn. 582 , O’Leary v. Wangensteen, 175 Minn. 368 , 221 N.W.
  • Fairview Community Hospitals v. Wilson 249 N.W.2d 442 Minn. 1976
  • Fairview Community Hospitals v. Wilson 249 N.W.2d 442 Minn. 1976
    O’Leary v. Wangensteen, 175 Minn. 368 , 221 N.W.
  • CAROGA REALTY COMPANY v. Tapper 143 N.W.2d 215 Minn. 1966
  • CAROGA REALTY COMPANY v. Tapper 143 N.W.2d 215 Minn. 1966
    They cite O’Leary v. Wangensteen, 175 Minn. 368 , , as requiring this result.
  • State, by Mondale v. Mecklenburg 140 N.W.2d 310 Minn. 1966
  • State, by Mondale v. Mecklenburg 140 N.W.2d 310 Minn. 1966
    The rules followed in Burnquist v. Cook, 220 Minn. 48 , 19 N. W. (2d) 394 ; Krueger v. Henschke, 210 Minn. 307 , ; and O’Leary v. Wangensteen, 175 Minn. 368 , , cited by the owners in support of their claim that the verdicts are not justified by the evidence, were applied to situations different from that presented here.
  • Backman v. Fitch 137 N.W.2d 574 Minn. 1965
  • Backman v. Fitch 137 N.W.2d 574 Minn. 1965
    *152 Backman contends that since the defense did not cross-examine on the matter of lost earnings the testimony with regard to the amount of such loss stands undisputed and subject to the doctrine laid down in O’Leary v. Wangensteen, 175 Minn. 368 , .
  • Southdale Center, Inc. v. Lewis 110 N.W.2d 857 Minn. 1961
  • Southdale Center, Inc. v. Lewis 110 N.W.2d 857 Minn. 1961
    Under the familiar and long-established doctrine of O’Leary v. Wangensteen, 175 Minn. 368, 370 , , it is the law of this state that “the court or jury cannot disregard the positive testimony of an unimpeached witness unless and until its improbability or inconsistency furnishes a reasonable ground for so doing.” 2 In the interest of expediting the trial of lawsuits and reducing their cos
  • Gothe v. Murray 109 N.W.2d 350 Minn. 1961
  • Gothe v. Murray 109 N.W.2d 350 Minn. 1961
    In O’Leary v. Wangensteen, 175 Minn. 368 , , this court stated that the rule is well established in this state that the court or jury cannot disregard the positive testimony of an unimpeached witness unless and until its improbability or inconsistency furnishes a reasonable ground for so doing, and this improbability or inconsistency must appea
  • Miller v. Hughes 105 N.W.2d 693 Minn. 1960
  • Miller v. Hughes 105 N.W.2d 693 Minn. 1960
    In O’Leary v. Wangensteen, 175 Minn. 368, 370 , , this court said: “* * * The rule is well established in this state that the court or *60 jury cannot disregard the positive testimony of an unimpeached witness unless and until its improbability or inconsistency furnishes a reasonable ground for so doing, and this improbability or inconsist
  • State v. Simonsen 89 N.W.2d 910 Minn. 1958
  • State v. Simonsen 89 N.W.2d 910 Minn. 1958
    To permit the jury to do so is to allow it to draw an inference based entirely upon conjecture, supported by neither testimony nor circumstantial evidence.” See, also, O’Leary v. Wangensteen, 175 Minn. 368 , .
  • In Re Estate of Sandstrom 252 Minn. 46 Minn. 1958
  • In Re Estate of Sandstrom 252 Minn. 46 Minn. 1958
    Relying on O'Leary v. Wangensteen, 175 Minn. 368 , 221 N.W.
  • Nelson v. Ackermann 83 N.W.2d 500 Minn. 1957
  • Nelson v. Ackermann 83 N.W.2d 500 Minn. 1957
    presented, it is apparently the contention of plaintiff that, inasmuch as there was no medical testimony to contradict the opinion of Dr. Dobson that plaintiff had suffered *585 a prolapsed disc as the result of this accident, the jury was compelled to find that the injuries which Dr. Dobson found at the time of the trial were the result of the accident, under the rule of O’Leary v. Wangensteen, 175 Minn. 368 , .
  • Cormican v. Anchor Casualty Co. 81 N.W.2d 782 Minn. 1957
  • Cormican v. Anchor Casualty Co. 81 N.W.2d 782 Minn. 1957
    It cannot be arbitrarily disregarded by either court or jury for reasons resting wholly in their own minds and not based upon anything appearing on the trial.” O’Leary v. Wangensteen, 175 Minn. 368, 370 , .
  • State v. Bollenbach 63 N.W.2d 278 Minn. 1954
  • State v. Bollenbach 63 N.W.2d 278 Minn. 1954
    Co. 215 Minn. 300 , 9 N. D. (2d) 730; O’Leary v. Wangensteen, 175 Minn. 368 , .
  • Ressen v. Northwestern National Bank & Trust Co. 56 N.W.2d 663 Minn. 1953
  • Ressen v. Northwestern National Bank & Trust Co. 56 N.W.2d 663 Minn. 1953
    O’Leary v. Wangensteen, 175 Minn. 368 , .
  • Knudson v. Nagel 56 N.W.2d 420 Minn. 1952
  • Knudson v. Nagel 56 N.W.2d 420 Minn. 1952
    Taking the view of the entire evidence most favorable to the verdict, inclusive of all evidentiary inferences to be reasonably drawn from the surrounding physical facts and circumstances, the jury could, under the rule of O’Leary v. Wangensteen, 175 Minn. 368 , , justifiably disregard defendant’s positive testimony.
  • Knuth v. Murphy 54 N.W.2d 771 Minn. 1952
  • Knuth v. Murphy 54 N.W.2d 771 Minn. 1952
    6 O’Leary v. Wangensteen, 175 Minn. 368 , .
  • Mattfeld v. Nester 32 N.W.2d 291 Minn. 1948
  • Mattfeld v. Nester 32 N.W.2d 291 Minn. 1948
    Under the rule of O’Leary v. Wangensteen, 175 Minn. 368 , , the jury would not have been justified in rejecting such testimony.
  • Grengs v. Erickson 29 N.W.2d 881 Minn. 1947
  • Grengs v. Erickson 29 N.W.2d 881 Minn. 1947
    The motion for judgment was granted upon the ground that under the rule of O’Leary v. Wangensteen, 175 Minn. 368 , , it was established as a matter of law that Ellaine grabbed hold of the steering wheel as claimed; that her doing so was the sole cause of the accident;.
  • Maas v. Midway Chevrolet Co. 18 N.W.2d 233 Minn. 1945
  • Maas v. Midway Chevrolet Co. 18 N.W.2d 233 Minn. 1945
    The rule is clearly stated in O’Leary v. Wangensteen, 175 Minn. 368, 370 , , 431: “* * * The rule is well established in this state that the court or jury cannot disregard the positive testimony of an unimpeached witness unless and until its improbability or inconsistency furnishes a reasonable ground for so doing, and this improbability or inconsistency must appear from
  • Moeller v. St. Paul City Railway Co. 16 N.W.2d 289 Minn. 1944