DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Yates v. Gamble, 268 N.W. 670.

46 citing documents.

  • Spannaus v. Otolaryngology Clinic & Professional Associates 242 N.W.2d 594 Minn. 1976
  • Spannaus v. Otolaryngology Clinic & Professional Associates 242 N.W.2d 594 Minn. 1976
    See, Hestbeck v. Hennepin County, 297 Minn. 419 , Jensen v. Linner, 260 Minn. 22 , Hoffman v. Naslund, 274 Minn. 521 , Yates v. Gamble, 198 Minn. 7 , Wallstedt v. The Swedish Hospital, 220 Minn. 274
  • City of Eveleth v. Ruble 225 N.W.2d 521 Minn. 1974
  • City of Eveleth v. Ruble 225 N.W.2d 521 Minn. 1974
    Gamble, 198 Minn. 7 , Quickstad v. Tavenner, 196 Minn. 125 , Getchell v. Hill, 21 Minn. 464 (1875) (medical doctors).
  • Hestbeck v. Hennepin County 212 N.W.2d 361 Minn. 1973
  • Hestbeck v. Hennepin County 212 N.W.2d 361 Minn. 1973
    1 Yates v. Gamble, 198 Minn. 7
  • Silver v. Redleaf 194 N.W.2d 271 Minn. 1972
  • Silver v. Redleaf 194 N.W.2d 271 Minn. 1972
    Yates v. Gamble, 198 Minn. 7, 12 , Berkholz v. Benepe, 153 Minn. 335, 337 , Moeller v. Hauser, 237 Minn. 368, 376 , Manion v. Tweedy, 257 Minn. 59, 70 , Hoffman v. Naslund, 274 Minn. 521, 531 , Swanson v. Chatt
  • Swanson Ex Rel. Swanson v. Chatterton 160 N.W.2d 662 Minn. 1968
  • Swanson Ex Rel. Swanson v. Chatterton 160 N.W.2d 662 Minn. 1968
    ce of a breach of duty, the establishment of which did not involve any scientific knowledge.” 3 Fritz v. Parke Davis & Co. 277 Minn. 210 , 152 N. W. (2d) 129 ; Hoffman v. Naslund, 274 Minn. 521 , 144 N. W. (2d) 580 ; Schulz v. Feigal, 273 Minn. 470 , 142 N. W. (2d) 84 ; Miller v. Raaen, 273 Minn. 109 , 139 N. W. (2d) 877 ; Manion v. Tweedy, 257 Minn. 59 , 100 N. W. (2d) 124 ; Yates v. Gamble, 198 Minn. 7 , .
  • Rausch v. Julius B. Nelson and Sons, Inc. 149 N.W.2d 1 Minn. 1967
  • Rausch v. Julius B. Nelson and Sons, Inc. 149 N.W.2d 1 Minn. 1967
    *17 In Yates v. Gamble, 198 Minn. 7, 15 , , we concisely said: “The court should direct a verdict for defendant if upon all the evidence it would be the manifest duty of the court to set aside a verdict against him.
  • Carlson v. Rand 146 N.W.2d 190 Minn. 1966
  • Carlson v. Rand 146 N.W.2d 190 Minn. 1966
    In other words, the court should direct a verdict in favor of a party in whose favor the evidence overwhelmingly preponderates, though there is some evidence in favor of the adverse party.” See, Coleman v. Huebener, 269 Minn. 198 , 130 N. W. (2d) 322 ; Yates v. Gamble, 198 Minn. 7, 15 , ; Giermann v. St.
  • Hoffman v. Naslund 144 N.W.2d 580 Minn. 1966
  • Hoffman v. Naslund 144 N.W.2d 580 Minn. 1966
    Harju v. Allen, 146 Minn. 23 , ; Martin v. Courtney, 75 Minn. 255 , ; Yates v. Gamble, 198 Minn. 7 , ; Miller v. Raaen, 273 Minn. 109 , 139 N. W. (2d) 877 .
  • Schulz v. Feigal 142 N.W.2d 84 Minn. 1966
  • Schulz v. Feigal 142 N.W.2d 84 Minn. 1966
    Annotation, 13 A. L. R. (2d) 11, citing Clark v. George, 148 Minn. 52 , ; Ellering v. Gross, 189 Minn. 68 , ; Yates v. Gamble, 198 Minn. 7 , ; and Williamson v. Andrews, 198 Minn. 349 , .
  • Miller v. Raaen 139 N.W.2d 877 Minn. 1966
  • Miller v. Raaen 139 N.W.2d 877 Minn. 1966
    Harju v. Allen, 146 *114 Minn. 23, ; Martin v. Courtney, 75 Minn. 255 , ; Yates v. Gamble, 198 Minn. 7 , .
  • Ericksen v. Wilson 123 N.W.2d 687 Minn. 1963
  • Ericksen v. Wilson 123 N.W.2d 687 Minn. 1963
    In the Nelson case plaintiff contended that a finding of negligence would be justified as an inference of fact under the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur, but this court said that the doctrine did not apply under the circumstances of that case, citing Nelson v. Dahl, 174 Minn. 574 , ; Johnson v. Arndt, 186 Minn. 253 , ; Yates v. Gamble, 198 Minn. 7 , ; and 20 Minn. L. Rev. 241 .
  • Hanrahan v. Safway Steel Scaffold Co. 46 N.W.2d 243 Minn. 1951
  • Hanrahan v. Safway Steel Scaffold Co. 46 N.W.2d 243 Minn. 1951
    Co. 30 Minn. 482 , ; Yates v. Gamble, 198 Minn. 7 , ; 23 Minn. L. Rev. 363 , 367.
  • Wallstedt v. Swedish Hospital 19 N.W.2d 426 Minn. 1945
  • Wallstedt v. Swedish Hospital 19 N.W.2d 426 Minn. 1945
    In Yates v. Gamble, 198 Minn. 7 , , a malpractice case, this court held that the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur did not apply, since opinion evidence of medical experts was necessary to make out a case.
  • Windorski v. Doyle 18 N.W.2d 142 Minn. 1945
  • Windorski v. Doyle 18 N.W.2d 142 Minn. 1945
    Co. 30 Minn. 482 , ; Yates v. Gamble, 198 Minn. 7 , ; 23 Minn. L. Rev. 363 , 367.
  • Kundiger v. Prudential Insurance Co. of America 17 N.W.2d 49 Minn. 1944
  • Kundiger v. Prudential Insurance Co. of America 17 N.W.2d 49 Minn. 1944
    In other words, the court should direct a verdict in favor of a party in whose favor the evidence overwhelmingly preponderates, though there is some evidence in favor of the adverse party.” See, also, Yates v. Gamble, 198 Minn. 7 , ; 6 Dunnell, Dig.
  • Spensley v. Oliver Iron Mining Co. 13 N.W.2d 425 Minn. 1944
  • Spensley v. Oliver Iron Mining Co. 13 N.W.2d 425 Minn. 1944
    Co. 185 Minn. 313 , ; Mozes v. Borlaug, 190 Minn. 568 , ; Kingsley v. Alden, 193 Minn. 503 , ; Yates v. Gamble, 198 Minn. 7 , ; Pennsylvania R. Co. v. Chamberlain, 288 U. S. 333 , 53 S. Ct. 391 , 77 L. ed. 819.
  • Johnson v. Colp 300 N.W. 791 Minn. 1941
  • Johnson v. Colp 300 N.W. 791 Minn. 1941
    In this case we are precluded from applying the doctrine because of our holdings that no inference of lack of *248 skill or care can be drawn from a failure on the part of a physician or surgeon by treatment or operation to effect a cure, Yates v. Gamble, 198 Minn. 7 , ; Nelson v. Dahl, 174 Minn. 574 , ; see Collings v. Northwestern Hospital, 202 Minn. 139, 143 , , since such failure to cure occurs under the most skilful and careful treatment.
  • Brulla v. Cassady 289 N.W. 404 Minn. 1939
  • Brulla v. Cassady 289 N.W. 404 Minn. 1939
    In the late case of Yates v. Gamble, 198 Minn. 7, 15 , , we concisely said that: “The court should direct a verdict for defendant if upon all the evidence it would be the manifest duty of the court to set aside a verdict against him.
  • Bartley v. Fritz 285 N.W. 484 Minn. 1939
  • Bartley v. Fritz 285 N.W. 484 Minn. 1939
    Co. 30 Minn. 482 , ; Yates v. Gamble, 198 Minn. 7 , ; 23 Minn. L. Rev. 363 , 367.
  • Cassidy v. McLaughlin 285 N.W. 889 Minn. 1939
  • Cassidy v. McLaughlin 285 N.W. 889 Minn. 1939
    It is enough to refer to the last four malpractice cases in this court, which also cite and discuss prior decisions: Quickstad v. Tavenner, 196 Minn. 125 , ; Yates v. Gamble, 198 Minn. 7 , ; Williamson v. Andrews, 198 Minn. 349 , ; Nelson v. Nicollet Clinic, 201 Minn. 505 , .
  • Collings v. Northwestern Hospital 277 N.W. 910 Minn. 1938
  • Collings v. Northwestern Hospital 277 N.W. 910 Minn. 1938
    Nelson v. Dahl, 174 Minn. 574 , ; Johnson v. Arndt, 186 Minn. 253 , ; Yates v. Gamble, 198 Minn. 7 , .
  • Nelson v. Nicollet Clinic 276 N.W. 801 Minn. 1937
  • Nelson v. Nicollet Clinic 276 N.W. 801 Minn. 1937
    Quickstad v. Tavenner, 196 Minn. 125 , ; Yates v. Gamble, 198 Minn. 7 , ; Williamson v. Andrews, 198 Minn. 349 , ; Walker v. Holbrook, 130 Minn. 106 , ; Moehlenbrock v. Parke, Davis & Co. 145 Minn. 100 , ; Nelson v. Dahl, 174 Minn. 574 , ; Harju v. Allen, 146 Minn. 23 , .
  • Williamson v. Andrews 270 N.W. 6 Minn. 1936
  • Williamson v. Andrews 270 N.W. 6 Minn. 1936
    He is only required to possess the skill and learning possessed by the average member of his school of the profession in good standing in his locality, and to apply that skill and learning Avith due care.” Yates v. Gamble, 198 Minn. 7, 12 , .