DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Hagsten v. Simberg, 44 N.W.2d 611.

50 citing documents.

  • Ana Thompson, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
    Renner & Sons, d 832, 834 (Minn. 2021)); (“In a civil case, to warrant recovery on circumstantial evidence, the evidence must ‘outweigh’ other hypotheses .
  • Minn. 2021
    13 d 611, 613 (Minn. 1950) (explaining that a plaintiff’s theory of proximate cause need not “be proved beyond a reasonable doubt or demonstra te the impossibility of every other reasonable hypothesis” (quoting Sherman v. Minn. Mut.
  • Scott Raden, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
    Raden also cites Hagsten v. Simberg , 232 Minn. 160, 164, where the supreme court held that mere proof that an accident occurred is not sufficient to prove neg ligence without actual pr oof of negligence or its causal relation to the injury.
  • David Charles Widmer v. Dallas Jacob Albertson Minn. Ct. App. 2015
  • David Charles Widmer v. Dallas Jacob Albertson Minn. Ct. App. 2015
    “[M]ere proof of the happening of the accident or proof that death or injury was the result of the act of another, without proof of negligence or its causal relation to the result complained of, is not sufficient.” Hagsten v. Simberg, 232 Minn. 160, 164
  • 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
    See, e.g., Hagsten v. Simberg, 232 Minn. 160, 164 , (citing Alling v. N.W.
  • Rowe v. Munye 674 N.W.2d 761 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
  • Rowe v. Munye 674 N.W.2d 761 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
    Hagsten v. Simberg, 232 Minn. 160, 163-65 , (noting that “Megligence, and its causal relation to the injuries upon which the right to recover rests must be proved by that degree of proof ...
  • Johnson v. Waletzke 448 N.W.2d 541 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
  • Johnson v. Waletzke 448 N.W.2d 541 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
    See Hagsten v. Simberg, 232 Minn. 160, 163-64 , Lenz v. Johnson, 265 Minn. 421, 424
  • Veld v. Steffl 363 N.W.2d 821 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
  • Elias v. City of St. Paul 350 N.W.2d 442 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
  • Elias v. City of St. Paul 350 N.W.2d 442 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
    In Hagsten v. Simberg, 232 Minn. 160, 163, 164 , the Minnesota Supreme Court stated: *444 While it is true that civil damages may be recovered where the proof is circumstantial if the evidence meets the legal quantum of proof, mere proof of the happening of the accident or proof that death or injury was the result of the act of
  • Arens v. Minneapolis-Moline, Inc. 213 N.W.2d 336 Minn. 1973
  • Arens v. Minneapolis-Moline, Inc. 213 N.W.2d 336 Minn. 1973
    Hagsten v. Simberg, 232 Minn. 160 , Hanrahan v. Safway Steel Scaffold Co. 233 Minn. 171
  • Martelle v. Thompson 167 N.W.2d 376 Minn. 1969
  • Martelle v. Thompson 167 N.W.2d 376 Minn. 1969
    Hagsten v. Simberg, 232 Minn. 160 , 44 N. W. (2d) 611 ; 7 Dunnell, Dig.
  • Peterson v. MINNEAPOLIS STAR AND TRIBUNE COMPANY 164 N.W.2d 621 Minn. 1969
  • Peterson v. MINNEAPOLIS STAR AND TRIBUNE COMPANY 164 N.W.2d 621 Minn. 1969
    We said in Hagsten v. Simberg, 232 Minn. 160, 165 , 44 N. W. (2d) 611 , 614: “The burden rests on plaintiff to establish the negligence of defendants and its causal relation to the death of plaintiff’s intestate, whether such proof is circumstantial or direct.
  • Johnson v. Lorraine Park Apts. Inc. 128 N.W.2d 758 Minn. 1964
  • Johnson v. Lorraine Park Apts. Inc. 128 N.W.2d 758 Minn. 1964
    Co. 219 Minn. 381 , 18 N. W. (2d) 121 ; Anderson v. Northern States Power Co. 236 Minn. 196 , 52 N. W. (2d) 434 ; Hagsten v. Simberg, 232 Minn. 160 , 44 N. W. (2d) 611 ; State, by Burnquist, v. Paskewitz, 233 Minn. 452 , 47 N. W. (2d) 199 ; Collings v. Northwestern Hospital, 202 Minn. 139 , ; Smock v. Mankato Elks Club, 203 Minn. 265 , .
  • Majerus v. Guelsow 113 N.W.2d 450 Minn. 1962
  • Majerus v. Guelsow 113 N.W.2d 450 Minn. 1962
    The court distinguished the facts there from Hagsten v. Simberg, 232 Minn. 160 , 44 N. W. (2d) 611 .
  • Trimbo v. Minnesota Valley Natural Gas Co. 110 N.W.2d 168 Minn. 1961
  • Trimbo v. Minnesota Valley Natural Gas Co. 110 N.W.2d 168 Minn. 1961
    Co. 191 Minn. 607 , ; Hagsten v. Simberg, 232 Minn. 160 , 44 N. W. (2d) 611 ; Meyers v. Minneapolis, St.
  • Jensen v. Linner 108 N.W.2d 705 Minn. 1961
  • Jensen v. Linner 108 N.W.2d 705 Minn. 1961
    See, Smock v. Mankato Elks Club, 203 Minn. 265 , ; see, also, Hagsten v. Simberg, 232 Minn. 160 , 44 N. W. (2d) 611 , where the same rule is emphasized.
  • Dahling v. Dammann 87 N.W.2d 25 Minn. 1957
  • Dahling v. Dammann 87 N.W.2d 25 Minn. 1957
    Defendants cited, among other cases, Hagsten v. Simberg, 232 Minn. 160 , 44 N. W. (2d) 611 , in which this court said that civil damages may be recovered where the proof is circumstantial if the evidence meets the quantum of proof but that mere proof of the happening of an accident or that death or injury was the result of the act of another without proof of negligence or its causal rela
  • Jeske v. George R. Wolff Holding Co. 83 N.W.2d 729 Minn. 1957
  • Jeske v. George R. Wolff Holding Co. 83 N.W.2d 729 Minn. 1957
    Hagsten v. Simberg, 232 Minn. 160 , 44 N. W. (2d) 611 ; Maher v. Duluth Yellow Cab Co. 172 Minn. 439 , .
  • Prior Lake State Bank v. National Surety Corp. 80 N.W.2d 612 Minn. 1957
  • Prior Lake State Bank v. National Surety Corp. 80 N.W.2d 612 Minn. 1957
    Jur., Suretyship, § 361; see, Hagsten v. Simberg, 232 Minn. 160 , 44 N. W. (2d) 611 .
  • DeLOSIER v. Metcalf 80 N.W.2d 57 Minn. 1956
  • DeLOSIER v. Metcalf 80 N.W.2d 57 Minn. 1956
    5 Compare, O’Neil v. Cochrane, 184 Minn. 354 , , and Hagsten v. Simberg, 232 Minn. 160 , 44 N. W. (2d) 611 , with Shawley v. Husman, 247 Minn. 510 , 78 N. W. (2d) 60 .
  • Standafer v. First National Bank 68 N.W.2d 362 Minn. 1955
  • Distinguished Standafer v. First National Bank 68 N.W.2d 362 Minn. 1955
    While usually it is true that little good is accomplished by attempting to distinguish cases in the field of negligence since the facts seldom are identical, we might say in passing that we believe that the facts in this case clearly are distinguishable from such cases as Hagsten v. Simberg, 232 Minn. 160 , 44 N. W. (2d) 611 ; Maher v. Duluth Yellow Cab Co. 172 Minn. 439 , ; and Hanrahan v. Safway Steel Scaffold Co. 233 Minn. 171 , 46 N. W. (2d) 243 , relied upon by defendants.
  • Village of Plummer v. Anchor Casualty Co. 61 N.W.2d 225 Minn. 1953
  • Village of Plummer v. Anchor Casualty Co. 61 N.W.2d 225 Minn. 1953
    Co. 219 Minn. 381 , 18 N. W. (2d) 121 ; Hagsten v. Simberg, 232 Minn. 160 , 44 N. W. (2d) 611 ; Standafer v. First Nat.
  • Westling v. Holm 58 N.W.2d 252 Minn. 1953
  • Westling v. Holm 58 N.W.2d 252 Minn. 1953
    Hagsten v. Simberg, 232 Minn. 160 , 44 N„ W. (2d) 611; Marcum v. Clover Leaf Creamery Co. 225 Minn. 139 , 30 N. W. (2d) 24 ; Maher v. Duluth Yellow Cab Co. 172 Minn. 439 , ; Kludzinski v. G. N. Ry.
  • Manteuffel v. Theo. Hamm Brewing Co. 56 N.W.2d 310 Minn. 1952
  • Manteuffel v. Theo. Hamm Brewing Co. 56 N.W.2d 310 Minn. 1952
    The same is true of Hagsten v. Simberg, 232 Minn. 160 , 44 N. W. (2d) 611 , cited by defendant, where all that appeared from the evidence was the occurrence of the accident, with nothing to show how it happened.
  • Knuth v. Murphy 54 N.W.2d 771 Minn. 1952
  • Knuth v. Murphy 54 N.W.2d 771 Minn. 1952
    Co. 191 Minn. 607, 612 , ; Hagsten v. Simberg, 232 Minn. 160 , 44 N. W. (2d) 611 ; Standafer v. First Nat.
  • State v. Paskewitz 47 N.W.2d 199 Minn. 1951
  • State v. Paskewitz 47 N.W.2d 199 Minn. 1951
    Hagsten v. Simberg, 232 Minn. 160 , 44 N. W. (2d) 611 .
  • 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
    Hagsten v. Simberg, 232 Minn. 160 , 44 N. W. (2d) 611 .