Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite TePoel v. Larson, 53 N.W.2d 468.

35 citing documents.

Hanson v. Roe 373 N.W.2d 366 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Hanson v. Roe 373 N.W.2d 366 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
TePoel v. Larson, 236 Minn. 482
Price v. Amdal 256 N.W.2d 461 Minn. 1977
Price v. Amdal 256 N.W.2d 461 Minn. 1977
In TePoel v. Larson, 236 Minn. 482 , we went further and held that it was reversible error for the trial court to instruct a jury of the existence of the common-law presumption of due care where the presumption operates against the party having the burden of proving contributory negligence.
Steinhaus v. Adamson 201 N.W.2d 264 Minn. 1972
Steinhaus v. Adamson 201 N.W.2d 264 Minn. 1972
The only change in the law as it existed under TePoel v. Larson, 236 Minn. 482 , is the italicized portion.
Mineral Resources, Inc. v. Mahnomen Construction Co. 184 N.W.2d 780 Minn. 1971
Mineral Resources, Inc. v. Mahnomen Construction Co. 184 N.W.2d 780 Minn. 1971
TePoel v. Larson, 236 Minn. 482 , 53 N. W. (2d) 468 , 37 Minn. L. Rev. 629 , is the leading case dealing with an instruction concerning a presumption.
Schwalich v. Guenther 166 N.W.2d 74 Minn. 1969
Schwalich v. Guenther 166 N.W.2d 74 Minn. 1969
TePoel v. Larson, 236 Minn. 482 , 53 N. W. (2d) 468 .
Jones v. Peterson 156 N.W.2d 733 Minn. 1968
Jones v. Peterson 156 N.W.2d 733 Minn. 1968
A more recent explanation of the view of this court on this subject is to be found in TePoel v. Larson, 236 Minn. 482 , 53 N. W. (2d) 468 .
Lustik v. Rankila 131 N.W.2d 741 Minn. 1964
Lustik v. Rankila 131 N.W.2d 741 Minn. 1964
An interpretation of TePoel v. Larson, 236 Minn. 482 , 53 N. W. (2d) 468 , has been suggested which we believe is at complete variance with what that opinion holds.
State v. Edwards 130 N.W.2d 623 Minn. 1964
State v. Edwards 130 N.W.2d 623 Minn. 1964
eads as follows: “Whoever has in his possession any device, explosive, or other instrumentality with intent to use or permit the use of the same to commit burglary may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than three years or to payment of a fine of not more than $3,000, or both.” 2 The subject of the use of presumptions in civil and criminal cases is exhaustively treated in TePoel v. Larson, 236 Minn. 482 , 53 N. W. (2d) 468 ; State v. Higgin, 257 Minn. 46 , 99 N. W. (2d) 902 ; and Barrett
Diker v. City of St. Louis Park 130 N.W.2d 113 Minn. 1964
Diker v. City of St. Louis Park 130 N.W.2d 113 Minn. 1964
Again in TePoel v. Larson, 236 Minn. 482, 484 , 53 N. W. (2d) 468, 469 , where the contributory negligence of a minor was being reviewed, the court noted: *471 “* * * While Russell [the plaintiff] was a boy of at least average intelligence, he only was 9 Vi years old.
Lambach v. Northwestern Refining Co. Inc. 111 N.W.2d 345 Minn. 1961
State v. Keaton 104 N.W.2d 650 Minn. 1960
State v. Keaton 104 N.W.2d 650 Minn. 1960
However, cases decided prior to TePoel v. Larson, 236 Minn. 482 , 53 N. W. (2d) 468 , are of doubtful value and significance since the court in that case expressly overruled contrary expressions of opinion in earlier decisions.
State v. Higgin 99 N.W.2d 902 Minn. 1959
State v. Higgin 99 N.W.2d 902 Minn. 1959
7 It follows, and we held in TePoel v. Larson, 236 Minn. 482 , 53 N. W. (2d) 468 , that, as a general rule, the jury cannot properly be instructed as to the existence of the presumption any more than any other nonevidentiary factor.
Roeck v. Halvorson 95 N.W.2d 172 Minn. 1959
Roeck v. Halvorson 95 N.W.2d 172 Minn. 1959
Co. 208 Minn. 487 , ), in TePoel v. Larson, 236 Minn. 482 , 53 N. W. (2d) 468 , it was declared to be error to instruct the jury with respect to such a presumption because it was only procedural in nature.
Lynghaug v. Payte 76 N.W.2d 660 Minn. 1956
Lynghaug v. Payte 76 N.W.2d 660 Minn. 1956
TePoel v. Larson, 236 Minn. 482 , 53 N. W. (2d) 468 .
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
Unlike the presumption in TePoel v. Larson, 236 Minn. 482 , 53 N. W. (2d) 468 , we do not here have a presumption operating against the party with the burden of proof.
State v. Fischer 71 N.W.2d 161 Minn. 1955
State v. Fischer 71 N.W.2d 161 Minn. 1955
a prima facie case was settled by this court in TePoel v. Larson, 236 Minn. 482 , 53 N. W. (2d) 468 .
Kath v. Kath 55 N.W.2d 691 Minn. 1952
Kath v. Kath 55 N.W.2d 691 Minn. 1952
4 See, Shell Oil Co. v. Kapler, 235 Minn. 292 , 50 N. W. (2d) 707 ; TePoel v. Larson, 236 Minn. 482 , 53 N. W. (2d) 468 .
Knuth v. Murphy 54 N.W.2d 771 Minn. 1952
Knuth v. Murphy 54 N.W.2d 771 Minn. 1952
In TePoel v. Larson, 236 Minn. 482 , 53 N. W. (2d) 468 , we definitely held: “Where the burden of proving contributory negligence rests on the party against whom a presumption of due care operates, it is reversible error to instruct the jury that there is such a presumption.” The basis for such holding is thoroughly set forth in the TePoel case and wil