DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Hinman v. Gould, 286 N.W. 364.

31 citing documents.

  • Veld v. Steffl 363 N.W.2d 821 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
  • Veld v. Steffl 363 N.W.2d 821 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
    Rome v. Rome, 307 Minn. 207, 209 , Kapla v. Lehti, 225 Minn. at 335 , d at 691 ; Hinman v. Gould, 205 Minn. 377, 381 , 286 N.W.
  • Rome v. Rome 239 N.W.2d 232 Minn. 1976
  • Rome v. Rome 239 N.W.2d 232 Minn. 1976
    2 See, also, Hinman v. Gould, 205 Minn. 377 , (could have seen car which began skidding at 300 feet, saw it in wrong lane at 85 feet, issue of negligence a jury question); Ranum v. Swenson, 220 Minn. 170 , (saw at 50 to 100 feet, jury question) ; Kapla v. Lehti, 225 Minn. 325 , (could have seen
  • Bisbee v. Ruppert 235 N.W.2d 364 Minn. 1975
  • Bisbee v. Ruppert 235 N.W.2d 364 Minn. 1975
    4 See, e. g., Kramer v. Kramer, 282 Minn. 58 , Ellwein v. Holmes, 243 Minn. 397 , State v. Becker, 231 Minn. 174 , Hinman v. Gould, 205 Minn. 377
  • Wild v. Rarig 234 N.W.2d 775 Minn. 1975
  • Wild v. Rarig 234 N.W.2d 775 Minn. 1975
    See, Hinman v. Gould, 205 Minn. 377
  • Kramer v. Kramer 162 N.W.2d 708 Minn. 1968
  • Kramer v. Kramer 162 N.W.2d 708 Minn. 1968
    This rule is well stated in Hinman v. Gould, 205 Minn. 377, 382 , , 366: “* * * [Wjhere counsel in his closing argument pursues an improper line of argument which invites or provokes a reply, it is not reversible error if his adversary engages in similar argument in reply even though such argument might otherwise be objectionable.” This rule was applied in Hall
  • Connolly v. Nicollet Hotel 104 N.W.2d 721 Minn. 1960
  • Connolly v. Nicollet Hotel 104 N.W.2d 721 Minn. 1960
    Plaintiff, however, contends that if the remarks indicated were prejudicial they nevertheless were provoked or invited by improper comments of defendants’ counsel in his argument, and being in response thereto should not be regarded as ground for reversal, citing Hinman v. Gould, 205 Minn. 377 , ; 39 Am.
  • Bush v. Havir 91 N.W.2d 784 Minn. 1958
  • Bush v. Havir 91 N.W.2d 784 Minn. 1958
    This court in Hinman v. Gould, 205 Minn. 377, 382 , , commenting upon the charge of misconduct of plaintiff’s counsel in discussing insurance in that case, said: “This case calls for the application of the rule that where counsel in his closing argument pursues an improper line of argument which invites or provokes a reply, it is not reversibl
  • Pettit v. Lifson 57 N.W.2d 34 Minn. 1953
  • Pettit v. Lifson 57 N.W.2d 34 Minn. 1953
    See, Hinman v. Gould, 205 Minn. 377 , .
  • Schiro v. Raymond 54 N.W.2d 329 Minn. 1952
  • Schiro v. Raymond 54 N.W.2d 329 Minn. 1952
    2 See, Schweikert v. Peters Sausage Co. 206 Minn. 596 , ; Hinman v. Gould, 205 Minn. 377 , ; Kime v. Koch, 227 Minn. 372 , 35 N. W. (2d) 534 .
  • State v. Becker 42 N.W.2d 704 Minn. 1950
  • State v. Becker 42 N.W.2d 704 Minn. 1950
    State v. Peterson, 153 Minn. 310 , ; Rolfsmeyer v. Rau, 198 Minn. 213 , ; Santee v. Haggart Const. Co. 202 Minn. 361 , ; Hinman v. Gould, 205 Minn. 377 , ; Symons v. G. N. Ry.
  • Kime v. Koch 35 N.W.2d 534 Minn. 1949
  • Kime v. Koch 35 N.W.2d 534 Minn. 1949
    “He proceeded headlong to encounter danger coming at him.” Hinman v. Gould, 205 Minn. 377, 381 , .
  • Ellerman v. Skelly Oil Co. 34 N.W.2d 251 Minn. 1948
  • Koenigs v. Thome 31 N.W.2d 534 Minn. 1948
  • Koenigs v. Thome 31 N.W.2d 534 Minn. 1948
    See, Hinman v. Gould, 205 Minn. 377, 382 , .
  • Kapla v. Lehti 30 N.W.2d 685 Minn. 1948
  • Kapla v. Lehti 30 N.W.2d 685 Minn. 1948
    As said in Hinman v. Gould, 205 Minn. 377, 381 , , 366: “* * * He proceeded headlong to encounter danger coming at him.
  • Eichten Ex Rel. Eichten v. Central Minnesota Cooperative Power Ass'n 28 N.W.2d 862 Minn. 1947
  • Eichten Ex Rel. Eichten v. Central Minnesota Cooperative Power Ass'n 28 N.W.2d 862 Minn. 1947
    You will give to counsel’s statement on this other matter such weight as you think it is entitled to.” See, Hinman v. Gould, 205 Minn. 377 , .
  • James v. Chicago, St. Paul, Minneapolis & Omaha Railway Co. 16 N.W.2d 188 Minn. 1944
  • James v. Chicago, St. Paul, Minneapolis & Omaha Railway Co. 16 N.W.2d 188 Minn. 1944
    Hinman v. Gould, 205 Minn. 377, 382 , , and authorities cited; Olson v. Purity Baking Co. 185 Minn. 571 , ; United States v. De Vasto (2 Cir.) 52 F. (2d) 26, 78 A. L. R. 336.