DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Knuth v. Murphy, 54 N.W.2d 771.

38 citing documents.

  • 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.
  • Schweich v. Ziegler, Inc. 463 N.W.2d 722 Minn. 1990
  • Schweich v. Ziegler, Inc. 463 N.W.2d 722 Minn. 1990
    ustifies an inference in support of the verdict upon the issue of negligence is adequate to sustain the verdict, even though it may justify other conflicting inferences, if the supporting inference reasonably outweighs and preponderates over the other conflicting inferences *730 and theories.’ ” Smith v. Kahler Corp., Inc., 297 Minn. 272, 276 , (quoting Knuth v. Murphy, 237 Minn. 225, 230 , ).
  • Lutz v. Lilydale Grand Central Corp. 250 N.W.2d 599 Minn. 1977
  • Lutz v. Lilydale Grand Central Corp. 250 N.W.2d 599 Minn. 1977
    Smith v. Kahler Corp., Inc. 297 Minn. 272 , Knuth v. Murphy, 237 Minn. 225
  • Smith v. KAHLER CORPORATION, INC. 211 N.W.2d 146 Minn. 1973
  • Smith v. KAHLER CORPORATION, INC. 211 N.W.2d 146 Minn. 1973
    “* * * Circumstantial evidence which justifies an inference in support of the verdict upon the issue of negligence is adequate to sustain the verdict, even though it may justify other conflicting inferences, if the supporting inference reasonably outweighs and preponderates over the other conflicting inferences and theories.” Knuth v. Murphy, 237 Minn. 225, 230
  • State v. Tinklenberg 194 N.W.2d 590 Minn. 1972
  • State v. Tinklenberg 194 N.W.2d 590 Minn. 1972
    This is the general rule, and any other would be an anachronism in this day when pictures are a common and recognized medium for the accurate portrayal of objects and events.” See, also, State v. Garden, 267 Minn. 97, 113 , Knuth v. Murphy, 237 Minn. 225
  • Bartholet v. Berkness 189 N.W.2d 410 Minn. 1971
  • Capriotti v. Beck 117 N.W.2d 563 Minn. 1962
  • Capriotti v. Beck 117 N.W.2d 563 Minn. 1962
    Pettit v. Lifson, 238 Minn. 349 , 57 N. W. (2d) 34 ; Forseth v. Duluth- *44 Superior Transit Co. 202 Minn. 447 , ; Knuth v. Murphy, 237 Minn. 225 , 54 N. W. (2d) 771 .
  • State v. Keaton 104 N.W.2d 650 Minn. 1960
  • State v. Keaton 104 N.W.2d 650 Minn. 1960
    Co. 206 Minn. 562 , ; *364 Roeck v. Halvorson, 254 Minn. 394 , 95 N. W. (2d) 172 ; Lynghaug v. Payte, 247 Minn. 186 , 76 N. W. (2d) 660 , 56 A. L. R. (2d) 1090; Kath v. Kath, 238 Minn. 120 , 55 N. W. (2d) 691 ; Knuth v. Murphy, 237 Minn. 225 , 54 N. W. (2d) 771 .
  • State v. Higgin 99 N.W.2d 902 Minn. 1959
  • State v. Higgin 99 N.W.2d 902 Minn. 1959
    7 See, also, Roeck v. Halvorson, 254 Minn. 394 , 95 N. W. (2d) 172 ; Lynghaug v. Payte, 247 Minn. 186 , 76 N. W. (2d) 660 , 56 A. L. R. (2d) 1090; Kath v. Kath, 238 Minn. 120 , 55 N. W. (2d) 691 ; Knuth v. Murphy, 237 Minn. 225 , 54 N. W. (2d) 771 .
  • Burdick v. Bongard 96 N.W.2d 868 Minn. 1959
  • Burdick v. Bongard 96 N.W.2d 868 Minn. 1959
    6 Norton v. Nelson, 236 Minn. 237 , 53 N. W. (2d) 31 ; Knuth v. Murphy, 237 Minn. 225 , 54 N. W. (2d) 771 .
  • Erickson v. Strickler 90 N.W.2d 232 Minn. 1958
  • Erickson v. Strickler 90 N.W.2d 232 Minn. 1958
    In Knuth v. Murphy, 237 Minn. 225 , 54 N. W. (2d) 771 , we held that circumstantial evidence which justifies inferences in support of the verdict upon the issue of negligence, even in the face of other conflicting inferences, is adequate to sustain a verdict if the supporting inferences could reasonably be found to outweigh and preponderate over the o
  • In Re Estate of Sandstrom 252 Minn. 46 Minn. 1958
  • In Re Estate of Sandstrom 252 Minn. 46 Minn. 1958
    In Knuth v. Murphy, 237 Minn. 225, 229 , 54 N.W.
  • Dahling v. Dammann 87 N.W.2d 25 Minn. 1957
  • Dahling v. Dammann 87 N.W.2d 25 Minn. 1957
    In arguing that the court erred in its order, plaintiff contends that it is not the law that circumstantial evidence must be proved to a point of demonstration, citing Knuth v. Murphy, 237 Minn. 225 , 54 N. W. (2d) 771 .
  • Frank v. Stiegler 84 N.W.2d 912 Minn. 1957
  • Frank v. Stiegler 84 N.W.2d 912 Minn. 1957
    Knuth v. Murphy, 237 Minn. 225, 230 , 54 N. W. (2d) 771, 775 ; Schleuder v. Soltow, 239 Minn. 453 , 59 N. W. (2d) 320 .
  • Nelson v. Ackermann 83 N.W.2d 500 Minn. 1957
  • Nelson v. Ackermann 83 N.W.2d 500 Minn. 1957
    1 See, also, Knuth v. Murphy, 237 Minn. 225 , 54 N. W. (2d) 771 .
  • Storbakken v. Soderberg 75 N.W.2d 496 Minn. 1956
  • Storbakken v. Soderberg 75 N.W.2d 496 Minn. 1956
    But the jury was not bound to accept defendant’s testimony (Norton v. Nelson, 236 Minn. 237 , 53 N. W. [2d] 31; Knuth v. Murphy, 237 Minn. 225 , 54 N. W. [2d] 771), and obviously it did not do so.
  • Caballero v. Litchfield Wood-Working Co. Inc. 74 N.W.2d 404 Minn. 1956
  • Caballero v. Litchfield Wood-Working Co. Inc. 74 N.W.2d 404 Minn. 1956
    Jur., Evidence, §§ 1180, 1183; Knuth v. Murphy, 237 Minn. 225 , 54 N. W. (2d) 771 ; 58 Am.
  • Bielinski v. Colwell 65 N.W.2d 113 Minn. 1954
  • Bielinski v. Colwell 65 N.W.2d 113 Minn. 1954
    Knuth v. Murphy, 237 Minn. 225 , 54 N. W. (2d) 771 ; Norton v. Nelson, 236 Minn. 237 , 53 N. W. (2d) 31 ; Russell v. Winters, 185 Minn. 472 , .
  • 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
    Bank, 236 Minn. 123 , 52 N. W. (2d) 718 ; Knuth v. Murphy, 237 Minn. 225 , 54 N. W. (2d) 771 ; 7 Dunnell, Dig.
  • Knudson v. Nagel 56 N.W.2d 420 Minn. 1952
  • Knudson v. Nagel 56 N.W.2d 420 Minn. 1952
    See, Knuth v. Murphy, 237 Minn. 225 , 54 N. W. (2d) 771 .