Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Woyak v. Konieske, 54 N.W.2d 649.

31 citing documents.

Housing & Redevelopment Authority v. Kieffer Bros. Investment & Construction Co. 170 N.W.2d 862 Minn. 1969
Housing & Redevelopment Authority v. Kieffer Bros. Investment & Construction Co. 170 N.W.2d 862 Minn. 1969
Co. 248 Minn. 319 , 79 N. W. (2d) 688 ; Berg v. Ullevig, 244 Minn. 390 , 70 N. W. (2d) 133 ; Woyak v. Konieske, 237 Minn. 213 , 54 N. W. (2d) 649 , 33 A. L. R. (2d) 1241.
Tayam v. Executive Aero, Inc. 166 N.W.2d 584 Minn. 1969
Tayam v. Executive Aero, Inc. 166 N.W.2d 584 Minn. 1969
We have held, however, that the trial judge’s determination will not be disturbed on appeal unless it can be demonstrated either that there is absolutely no evidence that the witness possessed the requisite qualifications of an expert or that the court applied an erroneous legal standard, Woyak v. Konieske, 237 Minn. 213 , 54 N. W. (2d) 649 , 33 A. L. R. (2d) 1241; Koenigs v. Thome, 226 Minn. 14 , 31 N. W. (2d) 534 , and that in either case the error in admitting the expert’s opinion substantial
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
7 See, also, Smith v. Twin City Motor Bus Co. 228 Minn. 14 , 36 N. W. *137 (2d) 22; Woyak v. Konieske, 237 Minn. 213 , 54 N. W. (2d) 649 , 33 A. L. R. (2d) 1241; Lovejoy v. Minneapolis-Moline Power Imp.
State v. Eubanks 152 N.W.2d 453 Minn. 1967
State v. Eubanks 152 N.W.2d 453 Minn. 1967
In Woyak v. Konieske, 237 Minn. 213, 221 , 54 N. W. (2d) 649, 653 , 33 A. L. R. (2d) 1241, 1247, this court said: “Whether a sufficient foundation has been laid to qualify a witness as an expert ordinarily is a question for the trial court.
Teslow v. Minneapolis-Honeywell Regulator Co. 141 N.W.2d 507 Minn. 1966
Teslow v. Minneapolis-Honeywell Regulator Co. 141 N.W.2d 507 Minn. 1966
Woyak v. Konieske, 237 Minn. 213 , 54 N. W. (2d) 649 , 33 A. L. R. (2d) 1241; Carmody v. Aho, 251 Minn. 19 , 86 N. W. (2d) 692 .
City of Phoenix v. Schroeder 405 P.2d 301 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1965
Gardner v. Coca-Cola Bottling Co. of Minnesota, Inc. 127 N.W.2d 557 Minn. 1964
Gardner v. Coca-Cola Bottling Co. of Minnesota, Inc. 127 N.W.2d 557 Minn. 1964
10 Woyak v. Konieske, 237 Minn. 213 , 54 N. W. (2d) 649 , 33 A. L. R. (2d) 1241; Beckman v. Schroeder, 224 Minn. 370 , 28 N. W. (2d) 629 ; Albert Lea Ice & Fuel Co. v. United States Fire Ins.
Erickson v. Strickler 90 N.W.2d 232 Minn. 1958
Erickson v. Strickler 90 N.W.2d 232 Minn. 1958
In Woyak v. Konieske, 237 Minn. 213, 221 , 54 N. W. (2d) 649, 654 , 33 A. L. R. (2d) 1241, 1248, we pointed out that: “Where the opinion of a witness is elicited, the proper test to determine his qualification is whether his knowledge of the matter in relation to which his opinion is sought is such that it will probably aid the trier of the question to
Carmody v. Aho 86 N.W.2d 692 Minn. 1957
Distinguished Carmody v. Aho 86 N.W.2d 692 Minn. 1957
Mrs. Aho cites in support of the admissibility of this evidence, among other cases, our decision in Woyak v. Konieske, 237 Minn. 213 , 54 N. W. (2d) 649 , 33 A. L. R. (2d) 1241.
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
9 Woyak v. Konieske, 237 Minn. 213 , 54 N. W. (2d) 649 , 33 A. L. R. (2d) 1241; Smith v. Twin City Motor Bus Co. 228 Minn. 14 , 36 N. W. (2d) 22 .
Boutang v. Twin City Motor Bus Co. 80 N.W.2d 30 Minn. 1956
Boutang v. Twin City Motor Bus Co. 80 N.W.2d 30 Minn. 1956
6 Beckman v. Schroeder, 224 Minn. 370 , 28 N. W. (2d) 629 ; Woyak v. Konieske, 237 Minn. 213 , 54 N. W. (2d) 649 , 33 A. L. R. (2d) 1241.
Storbakken v. Soderberg 75 N.W.2d 496 Minn. 1956
Storbakken v. Soderberg 75 N.W.2d 496 Minn. 1956
In Woyak v. Konieske, 237 Minn. 213 , 54 N. W. (2d) 649 , 33 A. L. R. (2d) 1241, we held that the proper test to determine the qualifications of an expert witness is whether the opinion sought will probably aid the trier of the question to determine the truth.
State v. Brady 70 N.W.2d 449 Minn. 1955
State v. Brady 70 N.W.2d 449 Minn. 1955
No doubt the official position of these experts carried great weight with the jury in locating the place of the collision in the north lane.” These principles were approved in Woyak v. Konieske, 237 Minn. 213 , 54 N. W. (2d) 649 , 33 A. L. R. (2d) 1241, although there an opinion of an automobile repairman based upon inspection of photographs of a wrecked car — that the car was not in motion when it was struck — was held not to be within the common knowledge of a juror and hence properly received
Hartmon v. National Heater Co. 60 N.W.2d 804 Minn. 1953
Hartmon v. National Heater Co. 60 N.W.2d 804 Minn. 1953
Woyak v. Konieske, 237 Minn. 213 , 54 N. W. (2d) 649 ; Koenigs v. Thome, 226 Minn. 14 , 31 N. W. (2d) 534 ; 7 Dunnell, Dig.
Albert Lea Ice & Fuel Co. v. United States Fire Insurance 58 N.W.2d 614 Minn. 1953
Albert Lea Ice & Fuel Co. v. United States Fire Insurance 58 N.W.2d 614 Minn. 1953
See, Swanson v. LaFontaine, 238 Minn. 460 , 57 N. W. (2d) 262 ; Woyak v. Konieske, 237 Minn. 213 , 54 N. W. (2d) 649 .
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 .