DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Storey v. Weinberg, 31 N.W.2d 912.

46 citing documents.

  • Lisa Stone, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
    12 up for review only that part which is appealable.”
  • Halla Nursery, Inc. v. Baumann-Furrie & Co. 438 N.W.2d 400 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
  • Halla Nursery, Inc. v. Baumann-Furrie & Co. 438 N.W.2d 400 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
    tion for New Trial “The granting of a motion for a new trial on the ground of erroneous instructions to the jury, * * * rests largely in the sound discretion of the court, and its decision will not be disturbed on appeal unless there has been a clear abuse of that discretion.” Lindstrom v. Yellow Taxi Co. of Minneapolis, 298 Minn. 224, 230 , (quoting Storey v. Weinberg, 226 Minn. 48, 51 , ).
  • Parker v. Crabtree's Kitchen 404 N.W.2d 872 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
  • Parker v. Crabtree's Kitchen 404 N.W.2d 872 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
    Lindstrom v. Yellow Taxi Co. of Minneapolis, 298 Minn. 224, 230 , (quoting Storey v. Weinberg, 226 Minn. 48, 51 , ).
  • Lindstrom v. Yellow Taxi Company of Minneapolis 214 N.W.2d 672 Minn. 1974
  • Lindstrom v. Yellow Taxi Company of Minneapolis 214 N.W.2d 672 Minn. 1974
    This court has said: “The granting of a motion for a new trial on the ground of erroneous instructions to the jury, unlike a denial thereof, rests largely in the sound discretion of the court, and its decision will not be disturbed on appeal unless there has been a clear abuse of that discretion.” Storey v. Weinberg, 226 Minn. 48, 51
  • Nadeau v. Melin 110 N.W.2d 29 Minn. 1961
  • Nadeau v. Melin 110 N.W.2d 29 Minn. 1961
    8 Storey v. Weinberg, 226 Minn. 48 , 31 N. W. (2d) 912 ; Wright v. Avenson, 174 Minn. 97 , ; McAlpine v. Fidelity & Cas.
  • Donald v. Moses 94 N.W.2d 255 Minn. 1959
  • Donald v. Moses 94 N.W.2d 255 Minn. 1959
    Co. 242 Minn. 388 , 65 N. W. (2d) 661 ; Storey v. Weinberg, 226 Minn. 48 , 31 N. W. (2d) 912 ; Greene v. Mathiowetz, 212 Minn. 171 , 3 N. W. (2d) 97 ; Donovan v. Ogston, 239 Minn. 553 , 59 N. W. (2d) 672 ; Hess v. Koskovitch, 241 Minn. 174 , 62 N. W. (2d) 806 ; Trudeau v. Sina Contracting Co. Inc. 241 Minn. 79 , 62 N. W. (2d) 492 ; Peterson v. Lang, 239 Minn. 319 , 58 N. W. (2d) 609 ; MacI
  • Olson v. Penkert 90 N.W.2d 193 Minn. 1958
  • Olson v. Penkert 90 N.W.2d 193 Minn. 1958
    Barnabas Hospital, 231 Minn. 384 , 43 N. W. (2d) 221 ; Storey v. Weinberg, 226 Minn. 48 , 31 N. W. (2d) 912 ; Dehen v. Berning, 198 Minn. 522 , ; Steinbauer v. Stone, 85 Minn. 274 , .
  • Francis v. Wilson 83 N.W.2d 248 Minn. 1957
  • Francis v. Wilson 83 N.W.2d 248 Minn. 1957
    In Storey v. Weinberg, 226 Minn. 48 , 31 N. W. (2d) 912 , we said that it is the duty of the counsel to speak before it is too late for the court to correct its mistakes or inadvertent omissions (citing State v. VanGuilder, 199 Minn. 214 , ) and that the right to call the attention of the court to its inadvertent omissions or errors or to
  • Fieve v. Emmeck 78 N.W.2d 343 Minn. 1956
  • Fieve v. Emmeck 78 N.W.2d 343 Minn. 1956
    7 See, also, Storey v. Weinberg, 226 Minn. 48 , 31 N. W. (2d) 912 ; Nelson v. Twin City Motor Bus Co. 239 Minn. 276 , 58 N. W. (2d) 561 .
  • Jablinske v. Eckstrom 76 N.W.2d 654 Minn. 1956
  • Jablinske v. Eckstrom 76 N.W.2d 654 Minn. 1956
    10 Rule 51, Rules of Civil Procedure; Storey v. Weinberg, 226 Minn. 48 , 31 N. W. (2d) 912 .
  • Patton v. Minneapolis Street Railway Co. 71 N.W.2d 861 Minn. 1955
  • Patton v. Minneapolis Street Railway Co. 71 N.W.2d 861 Minn. 1955
    Co. 139 Minn. 258 , ; Marlow v. Streefland, 156 Minn. 450 , ; Lundblad v. Erickson, 180 Minn. 185 , ; Storey v. Weinberg, 226 Minn. 48 , 31 N. W. (2d) 912 ; Zywiec v. City of South St.
  • Adelmann v. Elk River Lumber Co. 65 N.W.2d 661 Minn. 1954
  • Adelmann v. Elk River Lumber Co. 65 N.W.2d 661 Minn. 1954
    Barnabas Hospital, 231 Minn. 384 , 43 N. W. (2d) 221 ; Storey v. Weinberg, 226 Minn. 48 , 31 N. W. (2d) 912 ; Dehen v. Berning, 198 Minn. 522 , ; Steinbauer v. Stone, 85 Minn. 274 , ; 2 Youngquist & Blacik, Minnesota Rules Practice, Comments to Rule 51, p. 554.
  • Ryan v. Griffin 62 N.W.2d 504 Minn. 1954
  • Ryan v. Griffin 62 N.W.2d 504 Minn. 1954
    10 Storey v. Weinberg, 226 Minn. 48, 52 , 31 N. W. (2d) 912, 915 .
  • Peterson v. Lang 58 N.W.2d 609 Minn. 1953
  • Peterson v. Lang 58 N.W.2d 609 Minn. 1953
    See, 2 Youngquist & Blacik, Minnesota Rules Practice, p. 555; Minnesota Rules of Civil Procedure, Tentative Draft, p. 175; Chapman v. Dorsey, 235 Minn. 25 , 49 N. W. (2d) 4 ; Storey v. Weinberg, 226 Minn. 48 , 31 N. W. (2d) 912 .
  • State v. Wilson 57 N.W.2d 412 Minn. 1953
  • Chapman v. Dorsey 49 N.W.2d 4 Minn. 1951
  • Chapman v. Dorsey 49 N.W.2d 4 Minn. 1951
    As stated in Foster v. Bock, 229 Minn. 428, 432 , 39 N. W. (2d) 862 , 865: “* * * Although a formal exception need not be taken to an inadvertent omission or error in a trial court’s instruction to the jury, such omission or error is no ground for granting a new trial unless the trial court’s attention has been seasonably directed thereto in some manner.” In Storey v. Weinberg, 226 Minn. 48, 51 , 31 N. W. (2d) 912, 915 , this court stated: “* * * The right to call the court’s attention to its in
  • Borchardt v. Kulick 48 N.W.2d 318 Minn. 1951
  • Borchardt v. Kulick 48 N.W.2d 318 Minn. 1951
    Storey v. Weinberg, 226 Minn. 48 , 31 N. W. (2d) 912 .
  • Bohnen v. Gorr 47 N.W.2d 459 Minn. 1951
  • Bohnen v. Gorr 47 N.W.2d 459 Minn. 1951
    Storey v. Weinberg, 226 Minn. 48 , 81 N. W. (2d) 912 ; Froden v. Ranzenberger, 230 Minn. 366 , 41 N. W. (2d) 807 ; Mickelson v. Kernkamp, 230 Minn. 448 , 42 N. W. (2d) 18 ; MacIllravie v. St.
  • Zywiec v. City of South St. Paul 47 N.W.2d 465 Minn. 1951
  • Zywiec v. City of South St. Paul 47 N.W.2d 465 Minn. 1951
    Storey v. Weinberg, 226 Minn. 48 , 31 N. W. (2d) 912 .
  • MacIllravie v. St. Barnabas Hospital 43 N.W.2d 221 Minn. 1950
  • MacIllravie v. St. Barnabas Hospital 43 N.W.2d 221 Minn. 1950
    In Storey v. Weinberg, 226 Minn. 48, 51 , 31 N. W. (2d) 912, 915 , we said: “* * * The right to call the court’s attention to its inadvertent omission or error in the charge, or to take exception thereto, involves a corresponding duty to exercise such right seasonably before the jury has retired.
  • Dahlberg v. Young 42 N.W.2d 570 Minn. 1950
  • Dahlberg v. Young 42 N.W.2d 570 Minn. 1950
    3 Foster v. Bock, 229 Minn. 428 , 39 N. W. (2d) 862 ; Storey v. Weinberg, 226 Minn. 48 , 31 N. W. (2d) 912 .
  • Mickelson v. Kernkamp 42 N.W.2d 18 Minn. 1950
  • Mickelson v. Kernkamp 42 N.W.2d 18 Minn. 1950
    Foster v. Bock, 229 Minn. 428, 432 , 39 N. W. (2d) 862, 865 , we said: “* « * Although a formal exception need not be taken to an inadvertent omission or error in a trial court’s instruction to the jury, such omission or error is no ground for granting a new trial unless the trial court’s attention has been seasonably directed thereto in some manner.” To the same effect, see, Storey v. Weinberg, 226 Minn. 48, 51-52 , 31 N. W. (2d) 912, 915 .
  • Froden v. Ranzenberger 41 N.W.2d 807 Minn. 1950
  • Froden v. Ranzenberger 41 N.W.2d 807 Minn. 1950
    n Foster v. Bock, 229 Minn. 428, 432 , 39 N. W. (2d) 862, 865 , we held: “* * * Although a formal exception need not be taken to an inadvertent omission or error in a trial court’s instruction to the jury, such omission or error is no ground for granting a new trial unless the trial court’s attention has been seasonably directed thereto in some manner.” To the same effect, see Storey v. Weinberg, 226 Minn. 48, 51-52 , 31 N. W. (2d) 912, 915 .
  • Foster v. Bock 39 N.W.2d 862 Minn. 1949
  • Foster v. Bock 39 N.W.2d 862 Minn. 1949
    3 For amplification, see Storey v. Weinberg, 226 Minn. 48 , 31 N. W. (2d) 912 .