Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Albert Lea Ice & Fuel Co. v. United States Fire Insurance, 58 N.W.2d 614.

35 citing documents.

State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Mark Wilmes, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Co. , 239 Minn. 198, 204–05
In the Matter of the Civil Commitment of: Jesse L. Lee f/k/a Dennis L. Wiesinger Minn. Ct. App. 2017
In the Matter of the Civil Commitment of: Jesse L. Lee f/k/a Dennis L. Wiesinger Minn. Ct. App. 2017
And an expert witness’s opinion “must be based on facts sufficient to form an adequate foundation.” Albert Lea Ice & Fuel Co. v. U.S. Fire Ins., 239 Minn. 198, 203
Goeman v. Allstate Insurance Co. 725 N.W.2d 375 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
Goeman v. Allstate Insurance Co. 725 N.W.2d 375 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
In Re Silicone Implant Insurance Coverage Litigation 652 N.W.2d 46 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
In Re Silicone Implant Insurance Coverage Litigation 652 N.W.2d 46 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
Co., 239 Minn. 198, 205 , see Minn. R. Civ.App.
Frank v. Winter 528 N.W.2d 910 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
Frank v. Winter 528 N.W.2d 910 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
for rev. denied (Minn. May 20, 1987); Albert Lea Ice & Fuel v. United States Fire Ins., 239 Minn. 198, 205 , 3 Erie J. Magnuson, et al., Minnesota Practice § 128.7 (1985 & Supp.1994).
MCC INVESTMENTS v. Crystal Properties 451 N.W.2d 243 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
MCC INVESTMENTS v. Crystal Properties 451 N.W.2d 243 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
Albert Lea Ice & Fuel Co. v. United States Fire Insurance Co., 239 Minn. 198, 203
Whitney v. Buttrick 376 N.W.2d 274 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Whitney v. Buttrick 376 N.W.2d 274 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Wohlfeil v. Murray MacHinery, Inc. 344 N.W.2d 869 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Wohlfeil v. Murray MacHinery, Inc. 344 N.W.2d 869 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
It is well established that an “expert must base his opinion 'on facts sufficient to form an adequate foundation for an opinion and should not be allowed to *875 speculate.” -55 (Minn.1982) (quoting Albert Lea Ice & Fuel Co. v. United States Fire Insurance Co., 239 Minn. 198, 202 , ).
Hudson v. Snyder Body, Inc. 326 N.W.2d 149 Minn. 1982
Hudson v. Snyder Body, Inc. 326 N.W.2d 149 Minn. 1982
The function of the expert is “to assist the jury in reaching a correct conclusion from the facts in evidence.” Albert *155 Lea Ice & Fuel Co. v. United States Fire Insurance Co., 239 Minn. 198, 202 , (citations omitted).
St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance v. Central Park Mobile Homes 529 P.2d 711 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1974
E. H. Renner & Sons, Inc. v. Primus 203 N.W.2d 832 Minn. 1973
E. H. Renner & Sons, Inc. v. Primus 203 N.W.2d 832 Minn. 1973
Co. 239 Minn. 198 , Huntley v. Wm.
Gerster v. Special Administrator for the Estate of Wedin 199 N.W.2d 633 Minn. 1972
Gerster v. Special Administrator for the Estate of Wedin 199 N.W.2d 633 Minn. 1972
Co. 239 Minn. 198 , that the opinion of an expert must be based on facts sufficient to form an adequate foundation for his opinion and that an opinion based on speculation and conjecture has no evidentiary value.
Huisinga Farms, Inc. v. Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance 154 N.W.2d 406 Minn. 1967
Huisinga Farms, Inc. v. Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance 154 N.W.2d 406 Minn. 1967
Co. 239 Minn. 198 , 58 N. W. (2d) 614 , in which case we adopted the rule that a windstorm is a wind capable of damaging the insured property either by its own unaided action or by projecting some object against it.
Filzen v. Nelson 149 N.W.2d 78 Minn. 1967
Filzen v. Nelson 149 N.W.2d 78 Minn. 1967
Co. 239 Minn. 198 , 58 N. W. (2d) 614 .
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
Co. 239 Minn. 198 , 58 N. W. (2d) 614 ; Berg v. Ullevig, 244 Minn. 390 , 70 N. W. (2d) 133 .
State v. Meany 115 N.W.2d 247 Minn. 1962
State v. Meany 115 N.W.2d 247 Minn. 1962
Co. 239 Minn. 198, 204 , 58 N. W. (2d) 614, 618 , we quote with approval from Hiber v. City of St.
In Re Declaration of Trust by Bush 249 Minn. 36 Minn. 1957
In Re Declaration of Trust by Bush 249 Minn. 36 Minn. 1957
Co. 239 Minn. 198, 205 , 58 N.W.
Storbakken v. Soderberg 75 N.W.2d 496 Minn. 1956
Storbakken v. Soderberg 75 N.W.2d 496 Minn. 1956
Co. 239 Minn. 198, 295 , 58 N. W. (2d) 614, 618 , this court said: “* * * Where such an opinion is not based upon an adequate factual foundation, it has no evidentiary value and should be rejected.

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by