Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Ostrowski v. Mockridge, 65 N.W.2d 185.

28 citing documents.

The Janice Kaunas Samsing Revocable Trust v. Arthur D. Walsh Minn. Ct. App. 2015
The Janice Kaunas Samsing Revocable Trust v. Arthur D. Walsh Minn. Ct. App. 2015
The district court “has wide discretion in permitting use of memoranda [to refresh a witness’s memory] and in the references that may be made thereto.” Ostrowski v. Mockridge, 242 Minn. 265, 274
State v. Bauer 598 N.W.2d 352 Minn. 1999
State v. Bauer 598 N.W.2d 352 Minn. 1999
“A trial court has wide discretion in permitting use of memoranda [to refresh a witness’s memory] and in the references that may be made thereto.” Ostrowski v. Mockridge, 242 Minn. 265, 274
In Re the Proposed Suspension, Revocation or Non-Renewal of the Nursing Home Licenses of Parkway Manor Healthcare Center 448 N.W.2d 116 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
In Re the Proposed Suspension, Revocation or Non-Renewal of the Nursing Home Licenses of Parkway Manor Healthcare Center 448 N.W.2d 116 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Appellants cite State v. Staat, 291 Minn. 394 , and Ostrowski v. Mockridge, 242 Minn. 265
State v. Staat 192 N.W.2d 192 Minn. 1971
State v. Staat 192 N.W.2d 192 Minn. 1971
We have held that the physician-patient privilege “extends by implication to nurses or attendants who are employees or acting under the direction of the physician examin *401 ing or treating the patient.” Ostrowski v. Mockridge, 242 Minn. 265, 273
State v. Dienger 176 N.W.2d 528 Minn. 1970
State v. Dienger 176 N.W.2d 528 Minn. 1970
Ostrowski v. Mockridge, 242 Minn. 265 , 65 N. W. (2d) 185 ; State v. Taunt, 16 Minn. 99 (109); State v. Spaulding, 34 Minn. 361 , ; McDonald v. United States (8 Cir.) 89 F. (2d) 128.
Walker v. Larson 169 N.W.2d 737 Minn. 1969
Walker v. Larson 169 N.W.2d 737 Minn. 1969
Co. 161 Minn. 45 , ; Carlton v. Carey, 83 Minn. 232 , ; Ostrowski v. Mockridge, 242 Minn. 265 , 65 N. W. (2d) 185 , 47 A. L. R. (2d) 733.
Larsen v. Minneapolis Gas Company 163 N.W.2d 755 Minn. 1968
Larsen v. Minneapolis Gas Company 163 N.W.2d 755 Minn. 1968
4 McCormack v. Hankscraft Co. Inc. 278 Minn. 322 , 154 N. W. (2d) 488 ; Johnson v. Clement F. Sculley Const. Co. 255 Minn. 41 , 95 N. W. (2d) 409 ; Bush v. Havir, 253 Minn. 318 , 91 N. W. (2d) 784 ; Rudd v. Village of Bovey, 252 Minn. 151 , 89 N. W. (2d) 689 ; Knox v. City of Granite Falls, 245 Minn. 11 , 72 N. W. (2d) 67 , 53 A. L. R. (2d) 1091; Ostrowski v. Mockridge, 242 Minn. 265 , 65 N. W. (2d) 185 , 47 A. L. R. (2d) 733.
State v. Fontana 152 N.W.2d 503 Minn. 1967
State v. Fontana 152 N.W.2d 503 Minn. 1967
In Ostrowski v. Mockridge, 242 Minn. 265 , 65 N. W. (2d) 185 , 47 A. L. R. (2d) 733, it was contended that the plaintiff had waived the privileged character of her conversations with and treatment by a doctor by submitting testimony as to her disabilities and by furnishing testimony of other medical experts with reference thereto.
Purdes v. Merrill 128 N.W.2d 164 Minn. 1964
Purdes v. Merrill 128 N.W.2d 164 Minn. 1964
Anderson v. Enfield, 244 Minn. 474 , 70 N. W. (2d) 409 ; Olson v. Prayfrock, 254 Minn. 42 , 94 N. W. (2d) 540 ; Ostrowski v. Mockridge, 242 Minn. 265 , 65 N. W. (2d) 185 , 47 A. L. R. (2d) 733; Odegard v. Connolly, 211 Minn. 342 , 1 N. W. (2d) 137 ; McKeown v. Argetsinger, 202 Minn. 595 , , 116 A. L. R. 398.
City of Litchfield v. TOWNSHIP OF PAYNESVILLE 103 N.W.2d 402 Minn. 1960
City of Litchfield v. TOWNSHIP OF PAYNESVILLE 103 N.W.2d 402 Minn. 1960
This court held in Ostrowski v. Mockridge, 242 Minn. 265, 274 , 65 N. W. (2d) 185, 191 , 47 A. L. R. (2d) 733, that: “* * * The rule applicable is set forth in Ammon v. Illinois Cent.
Pelzer v. Lange 93 N.W.2d 666 Minn. 1958
Pelzer v. Lange 93 N.W.2d 666 Minn. 1958
Brecht v. Town of Bergen, supra; Ostrowski v. Mockridge, 242 Minn. 265 , 65 N. W. (2d) 185 , 47 A. L. R. (2d) 733.
Briggs v. Chicago Great Western Railway Co. 80 N.W.2d 625 Minn. 1957
Briggs v. Chicago Great Western Railway Co. 80 N.W.2d 625 Minn. 1957
Jur., Witnesses, § 452; Annotation, 114 A. L. R. 798, 806; see, Ostrowski v. Mockridge, 242 Minn. 265 , 65 N. W. (2d) 185 , 47 A. L. R. (2d) 733.
State v. Anderson 78 N.W.2d 320 Minn. 1956
State v. Anderson 78 N.W.2d 320 Minn. 1956
Ostrowski v. Mockridge, 242 Minn. 265 , 65 N. W. (2d) 185 ; Brown v. St.
Anderson v. Enfield 70 N.W.2d 409 Minn. 1955
Anderson v. Enfield 70 N.W.2d 409 Minn. 1955
As stated in Odegard v. Connolly, 211 Minn. 342, 345 , 1 N. W. (2d) 137 , 139: a* * * So long as the insurance is not featured or made the basis * * * for an appeal to increase or decrease the damages, the information would seem to be without prejudice.” See, Ostrowski v. Mockridge, 242 Minn. 265 , 65 N. W. (2d) 185 ; Knudson v. Nagel, 238 Minn. 186 , 56 N. W. (2d) 420 ; Sander v. Dieseth, 230 Minn. 125 , 40 N. W. (2d) 844 ; Martin v. Schiska, 183 Minn. 256 , .