DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Zurko v. Gilquist, 62 N.W.2d 351.

50 citing documents.

  • DOMAGALA v. Rolland 787 N.W.2d 662 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
  • DOMAGALA v. Rolland 787 N.W.2d 662 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
    When considering the district court’s charge to the jury, it “must be construed as a whole” and “may not be attacked successfully by lifting a single sentence or even a paragraph from its context.” Zurko v. Gilquist, 241 Minn. 1, 4
  • Stewart v. Koenig 767 N.W.2d 497 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
  • Stewart v. Koenig 767 N.W.2d 497 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
    Although we generally review jury instructions for an abuse of discretion, we will reverse and remand for a new trial when a jury instruction conveys “an erroneous understanding of controlling principles of law.” See Zurko v. Gilquist, 241 Minn. 1, 5
  • Fallin v. Maplewood-North St. Paul District No. 622 348 N.W.2d 811 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
  • Fallin v. Maplewood-North St. Paul District No. 622 348 N.W.2d 811 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
    Zurko v. Gilquist, 241 Minn. 1
  • Adee v. Evanson 281 N.W.2d 177 Minn. 1979
  • Adee v. Evanson 281 N.W.2d 177 Minn. 1979
    See, Zurko v. Gilquist, 241 Minn. 1
  • Malik v. Johnson 219 N.W.2d 631 Minn. 1974
  • Malik v. Johnson 219 N.W.2d 631 Minn. 1974
    Plaintiffs cite Zurko v. Gilquist, 241 Minn. 1 , which holds that if as a whole the charge is likely to or reasonably does convey an erroneous understanding of the law to the jury, then reversal is required.
  • Lindstrom v. Yellow Taxi Company of Minneapolis 214 N.W.2d 672 Minn. 1974
  • Lindstrom v. Yellow Taxi Company of Minneapolis 214 N.W.2d 672 Minn. 1974
    Zurko v. Gilquist, 241 Minn. 1 , Froden v. Ranzenberger, 230 Minn. 366
  • Cameron v. City of Fridley 197 N.W.2d 233 Minn. 1972
  • Cameron v. City of Fridley 197 N.W.2d 233 Minn. 1972
    Zurko v. Gilquist, 241 Minn. 1 , 19 Dunnell, Dig.
  • State v. Widen 128 N.W.2d 755 Minn. 1964
  • State v. Widen 128 N.W.2d 755 Minn. 1964
    Zurko v. Gilquist, 241 Minn. 1 , 62 N. W. (2d) 351 .
  • Rauk v. Vold 127 N.W.2d 687 Minn. 1964
  • Rauk v. Vold 127 N.W.2d 687 Minn. 1964
    State v. Anderson, 261 Minn. 431 , 113 N. W. (2d) 4 ; Lott v. Davidson, 261 Minn. 130 , 109 N. W. (2d) 336 ; Cameron v. Evans, 241 Minn. 200 , 62 N. W. (2d) 793 ; Zurko v. Gilquist, 241 Minn. 1 , 62 N. W. (2d) 351 ; Lieberman v. Korsh, 264 Minn. 234 , 119 N. W. (2d) 180 ; Danielson v. St.
  • Sauke v. Bird 125 N.W.2d 421 Minn. 1963
  • Sauke v. Bird 125 N.W.2d 421 Minn. 1963
    See, also, Zurko v. Gilquist, 241 Minn. 1, 5 , 62 N. W. (2d) 351, 354 .
  • Lieberman v. Korsh 119 N.W.2d 180 Minn. 1962
  • Lieberman v. Korsh 119 N.W.2d 180 Minn. 1962
    In Zurko v. Gilquist, 241 Minn. 1, 5 , 62 N. W. (2d) 351, 354 , we said: “* * * in construing a jury charge as a whole, it must be scrutinized and tested from the standpoint of its total impact or impression upon the jury.
  • State v. Hayden Miller Co. 116 N.W.2d 535 Minn. 1962
  • State v. Hayden Miller Co. 116 N.W.2d 535 Minn. 1962
    In Zurko v. Gilquist, 241 Minn. 1, 5 , 62 N. W. (2d) 351, 354 , we said: “In construing a charge as a whole, its adequacy in correctly setting forth controlling principles of law is to be measured by the meaning it reasonably conveys to the jurors who hear it only once and have no opportunity to examine it in written form.” In applying this test to th
  • Sowada v. Motzko 98 N.W.2d 182 Minn. 1959
  • Sowada v. Motzko 98 N.W.2d 182 Minn. 1959
    Zurko v. Gilquist, 241 Minn. 1 , 62 N. W. (2d) 351 .
  • Donald v. Moses 94 N.W.2d 255 Minn. 1959
  • Donald v. Moses 94 N.W.2d 255 Minn. 1959
    See, Francis v. Wilson, 249 Minn. 508 , 83 N. W. (2d) 248 ; Zurko v. Gilquist, 241 Minn. 1 , 62 N. W. (2d) 351 ; Adelmann v. Elk River Lbr.
  • Tollefson v. Ehlers 90 N.W.2d 205 Minn. 1958
  • Tollefson v. Ehlers 90 N.W.2d 205 Minn. 1958
    10 See, Zurko v. Gilquist, 241 Minn. 1 , 62 N. W. (2d) 351 ; Froden v. *377 Ranzenberger, 230 Minn. 366 , 41 N. W. (2d) 807 ; Greene v. Mathiowetz, 212 Minn. 171 , 3 N. W. (2d) 97 .
  • Kachel v. Bendiske 88 N.W.2d 91 Minn. 1958
  • Distinguished Kachel v. Bendiske 88 N.W.2d 91 Minn. 1958
    Plaintiffs rely for the most part in Zurko v. Gilquist, 241 Minn. 1 , 62 N. W. (2d) 351 .
  • Sonntag v. Adkinson 87 N.W.2d 845 Minn. 1958
  • Sonntag v. Adkinson 87 N.W.2d 845 Minn. 1958
    Co. 242 Minn. 388 , 65 N. W. (2d) 661 ; Zurko v. Gilquist, 241 Minn. 1 , 62 N. W. (2d) 351 .
  • Lund v. Minneapolis Street Railway Co. 86 N.W.2d 78 Minn. 1957
  • Lund v. Minneapolis Street Railway Co. 86 N.W.2d 78 Minn. 1957
    Zurko v. Gilquist, 241 Minn. 1 , 62 N. W. (2d) 351 , and cases cited therein.
  • Priewe v. Bartz 83 N.W.2d 116 Minn. 1957
  • Francis v. Wilson 83 N.W.2d 248 Minn. 1957
  • Priewe v. Bartz 83 N.W.2d 116 Minn. 1957
    (3 ed.) § 9794; Zurko v. Gilquist, 241 Minn. 1 , 62 N. W. (2d) 351 .
  • Francis v. Wilson 83 N.W.2d 248 Minn. 1957
    In Zurko v. Gilquist, 241 Minn. 1 , 62 N. W. (2d) 351 , this court said that, even though a jury charge may be found on close inspection to be technically correct in its entirety, a new trial should be granted if its impact upon the jury is likely to convey, and reasonably does convey, an erroneous understanding of controlling principles of law.
  • Kollodge v. F. AND L. APPLIANCES, INC. 80 N.W.2d 62 Minn. 1956
  • Kollodge v. F. AND L. APPLIANCES, INC. 80 N.W.2d 62 Minn. 1956
    As we said in Zurko v. Gilquist, 241 Minn. 1, 5 , 62 N. W. (2d) 351 , 354: “In construing a charge as a whole, its adequacy in correctly setting forth controlling principles of law is to be measured by the meaning it reasonably conveys to the jurors who hear it only once and have no opportunity to examine it in written form.
  • Fieve v. Emmeck 78 N.W.2d 343 Minn. 1956
  • Fieve v. Emmeck 78 N.W.2d 343 Minn. 1956
    L. R. A. 601, 603 (“consistent with the orderly conduct of its business”); see, Prosser, Torts (2 ed.) § 33, “Carriers who accept passengers entrusted to their care must use great caution to protect them, which has been described as ‘the utmost caution characteristic of very careful prudent men,’ or ‘the highest possible care consistent with the nature of the undertaking.’ ” 5 Zurko v. Gilquist, 241 Minn. 1 , 62 N. W. (2d) 351 .
  • Markle v. Haase 73 N.W.2d 362 Minn. 1955
  • Markle v. Haase 73 N.W.2d 362 Minn. 1955
    6 See, Hagen v. Snow, 244 Minn. 101, 106 , 69 N. W. (2d) 100, 103 ; Zurko v. Gilquist, 241 Minn. 1, 5 , 62 N. W. (2d) 351, 354 .
  • Hagen v. Snow 69 N.W.2d 100 Minn. 1955
  • Hagen v. Snow 69 N.W.2d 100 Minn. 1955
    Recognizing that it is often difficult for jurors to understand technical and abstract legal propositions even though they may be correctly stated, this court recently pointed out in Zurko v. Gilquist, 241 Minn. 1, 5 , 62 N. W. (2d) 351 , 354: “In construing a charge as a whole, its adequacy in correctly setting forth controlling principles of law is to be measured by the meaning it reasonably conveys to the jurors who hear it only once and have no opportunity to examine it in written form.
  • Nathan v. St. Paul Mutual Insurance Co. 68 N.W.2d 385 Minn. 1955
  • Nathan v. St. Paul Mutual Insurance Co. 68 N.W.2d 385 Minn. 1955
    2 As was said in Zurko v. Gilquist, 241 Minn. 1, 5 , 62 N. W. (2d) 351 , 354: “* * * Even though a jury charge may by close inspection be found to be technically correct in its entirety, a new trial should be granted if its impact upon the jury is likely to convey, and reason *441 ably does convey, an erroneous understanding of controlling principles of law.” It ap