DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Lestico v. Kuehner, 283 N.W. 122.

44 citing documents.

  • Mark Kedrowski, Minn. 2019
    Although district courts have wide discretion in ruling on expert opinion testimony, that discretion must be “exercised favorably to any honest course capable of eliciting relevant truth.”
  • Curtis v. Klausler 802 N.W.2d 790 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
  • Distinguished Curtis v. Klausler 802 N.W.2d 790 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
    authorities; see also Lestico v. Kuehner, 204 Minn. 125, 133 , 283 N.W.
  • Osborne v. Twin Town Bowl, Inc. 749 N.W.2d 367 Minn. 2008
  • Osborne v. Twin Town Bowl, Inc. 749 N.W.2d 367 Minn. 2008
    In fact, we have equated the term “proximate cause” with the term “substantial factor.” Lestico v. Kuehner, 204 Minn. 125, 133 , 283 N.W.
  • Fehling v. Levitan 382 N.W.2d 901 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
  • Fehling v. Levitan 382 N.W.2d 901 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
    The Minnesota Supreme Court adopted the “substantial factor” causation formulation in Lestico v. Kuehner, 204 Minn. 125 , 283 N.W.
  • Holten v. Parker 224 N.W.2d 139 Minn. 1974
  • Holten v. Parker 224 N.W.2d 139 Minn. 1974
    Our cases have indicated that the concept has a very restricted application [See, Lestico v. Kuehner, 204 Minn. 125 , ], and that it should be limited to cases where there is some evidence of causation by an act of God or acts chargeable to an unknown party.
  • Jackson v. Wyatt Bros. Cement Co. 203 N.W.2d 360 Minn. 1972
  • Criticized Jackson v. Wyatt Bros. Cement Co. 203 N.W.2d 360 Minn. 1972
    In Lestico v. Kuehner, 204 Minn. 125, 131 , this court criticized some rulings of the trial court for being too restrictive on testimony challenged as calling for a conclusion of the witness: “* * * To illustrate, defendant was asked, on his direct examination : ‘And did you observe whether — where you made the sudden turn, whe
  • Bastianson v. Forschen 196 N.W.2d 451 Minn. 1972
  • Bastianson v. Forschen 196 N.W.2d 451 Minn. 1972
    3 See, Lestico v. Kuehner, 204 Minn. 125
  • Lund v. Connolly 145 N.W.2d 422 Minn. 1966
  • Lund v. Connolly 145 N.W.2d 422 Minn. 1966
    “In connection with the use of tires, this court said in Lestico v. Kuehner, 204 Minn. 125, 133 , , 127: “ ** * * The owner of an automobile may be negligent in using worn or damaged tires.
  • Ronningen v. Sonterre 143 N.W.2d 53 Minn. 1966
  • Ronningen v. Sonterre 143 N.W.2d 53 Minn. 1966
    6 See, Lestico v. Kuehner, 204 Minn. 125 , .
  • Hardware Mutual Casualty Co. v. Chrysler Corp. 142 N.W.2d 728 Minn. 1966
  • Hardware Mutual Casualty Co. v. Chrysler Corp. 142 N.W.2d 728 Minn. 1966
    Nevertheless, we feel justified in light of our opinion in Lestico v. Kuehner, 204 Minn. 125 , , in treating the parts received as adequately tied to the Chrysler as of the time of the collision.
  • Rahja v. Current 119 N.W.2d 699 Minn. 1963
  • Rahja v. Current 119 N.W.2d 699 Minn. 1963
    4 Lestico v. Kuehner, 204 Minn. 125 , (screw puncturing tire caused sudden blowout); Daly v. Springer, 244 Minn. 108 , 69 N. W. (2d) 98 (slippery spot caused car to skid off the road).
  • State v. Simonsen 89 N.W.2d 910 Minn. 1958
  • State v. Simonsen 89 N.W.2d 910 Minn. 1958
    4 Lestico v. Kuehner, 204 Minn. 125 , ; Abar v. Ramsey Motor Service, Inc. 195 Minn. 597 , .
  • Carmody v. Aho 86 N.W.2d 692 Minn. 1957
  • Lovejoy v. Minneapolis-Moline Power Implement Co. 79 N.W.2d 688 Minn. 1956
  • Lovejoy v. Minneapolis-Moline Power Implement Co. 79 N.W.2d 688 Minn. 1956
    10 Lestico v. Kuehner, 204 Minn. 125 , .
  • Lynghaug v. Payte 76 N.W.2d 660 Minn. 1956
  • Lynghaug v. Payte 76 N.W.2d 660 Minn. 1956
    An example of this type of situation is found in Lestico v. Kuehner, 204 Minn. 125, 133 , , where we said: “* * * The owner of an automobile may be negligent in using worn or damaged tires.
  • Brady v. Kroll 70 N.W.2d 354 Minn. 1955
  • Brady v. Kroll 70 N.W.2d 354 Minn. 1955
    App. (2d) 159, 142 P. (2d) 330 (petition for hearing by supreme court denied); see, Lestico v. Kuehner, 204 Minn. 125 , ; 9 Wigmore, Evidence (3 ed.) § 2489.
  • Swanson v. LaFontaine 57 N.W.2d 262 Minn. 1953
  • Swanson v. LaFontaine 57 N.W.2d 262 Minn. 1953
    Lestico v. Kuehner, 204 Minn. 125 , ; Woyak v. Konieske, 237 Minn. 213 , 54 N. W. (2d) 649 .
  • Woyak v. Konieske 54 N.W.2d 649 Minn. 1952
  • Woyak v. Konieske 54 N.W.2d 649 Minn. 1952
    Spino v. Butler Brothers, 113 Minn. 326 , ; Lestico v. Kuehner, 204 Minn. 125 , ; Piche v. Halvorson, 199 Minn. 526 , ; 2 Dunnell, Dig.
  • Rockwood v. Pierce 51 N.W.2d 670 Minn. 1952
  • Rockwood v. Pierce 51 N.W.2d 670 Minn. 1952
    Lestico v. Kuehner, 204 Minn. 125 , ; Koenigs v. Thome, 226 Minn. 14 , 31 N. W. (2d) 534 .
  • Otto v. Sellnow 46 N.W.2d 641 Minn. 1951
  • Otto v. Sellnow 46 N.W.2d 641 Minn. 1951
    In connection with the use of tires, this court said in Lestico v. Kuehner, 204 Minn. 125, 133 , , 127: * * The owner of an automobile may be negligent in using worn or damaged tires.
  • Beckman v. Schroeder 28 N.W.2d 629 Minn. 1947
  • Beckman v. Schroeder 28 N.W.2d 629 Minn. 1947
    & Supp. § 3325, and cases cited.” This is not a case like Lestico v. Kuehner, 204 Minn. 125 , , where an admitted expert on tires was not permitted to testify whether the air was suddenly or gradually let out of a punctured tire.
  • Hahn v. Diamond Iron Works, Inc. 20 N.W.2d 704 Minn. 1945
  • Hahn v. Diamond Iron Works, Inc. 20 N.W.2d 704 Minn. 1945
    Lestico v. Kuehner, 204 Minn. 125, 132 , .
  • Moeller v. St. Paul City Railway Co. 16 N.W.2d 289 Minn. 1944
  • Moeller v. St. Paul City Railway Co. 16 N.W.2d 289 Minn. 1944
    In Lestico v. Kuehner, 204 Minn. 125, 132 , , we held it error not to admit expert testimony of a mechanic with “lots of experience with tires” to testify as to whether air was suddenly deflated or gradually let out of the *365 punctured tire.