DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Hardy v. Anderson, 63 N.W.2d 814.

51 citing documents.

  • Quam v. General Accident Insurance Co. of North America 411 N.W.2d 270 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
  • Quam v. General Accident Insurance Co. of North America 411 N.W.2d 270 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
    Hardy v. Anderson, 241 Minn. 478, 483 , (footnote omitted).
  • Ferguson v. Northern States Power Co. 239 N.W.2d 190 Minn. 1976
  • Ferguson v. Northern States Power Co. 239 N.W.2d 190 Minn. 1976
    Hardy v. Anderson, 241 Minn. 478
  • Reikow v. BITUMINOUS CONST. COMPANY, INC. 224 N.W.2d 921 Minn. 1974
  • Reikow v. BITUMINOUS CONST. COMPANY, INC. 224 N.W.2d 921 Minn. 1974
    Hardy v. Anderson, 241 Minn. 478, 484 , and cases cited therein.
  • Janssen v. Neal 223 N.W.2d 804 Minn. 1974
  • Janssen v. Neal 223 N.W.2d 804 Minn. 1974
    Citing Hardy v. Anderson, 241 Minn. 478 , *182 defendant argues that the testimony of Keith Levitz, summarized above, supports the inference that the motorcycle had been traveling at 70 miles per hour, and that counsel was entitled to present his client’s case forcefully, even if this entailed drawing factual inferences from conflict
  • Malik v. Johnson 219 N.W.2d 631 Minn. 1974
  • Malik v. Johnson 219 N.W.2d 631 Minn. 1974
    While it is true that counsel are entitled wide latitude in their final arguments to the jury, Connolly v. The Nicollet Hotel, 258 Minn. 405, 419 , citing Hardy v. Anderson, 241 Minn. 478 , this wide latitude is not without limitations.
  • Christy v. Saliterman 179 N.W.2d 288 Minn. 1970
  • Christy v. Saliterman 179 N.W.2d 288 Minn. 1970
    12 Perhaps one of the best general canons of argument was written by Justice Matson in Hardy v. Anderson, 241 Minn. 478, 483-484 , : “ * * In arguing to the jury it is elementary that counsel is entitled to present his client’s case forcefully and fairly, and his efforts are not to be crippled by compelling him to run a course of technical hazards either when he draws factual inferences from the conflicting eviden
  • Wallace v. Nelson 178 N.W.2d 698 Minn. 1970
  • Wallace v. Nelson 178 N.W.2d 698 Minn. 1970
    Holding that there was no contributory negligence, we said ( 247 Minn. 424 , 77 N. W. [2d] 739): “* * * As we stated in Hardy v. Anderson, 241 Minn. 478, 481 , 63 N. W. (2d) 814 , 817: “ ** * * A litigant before seeking reversal on the ground of contributory negligence as a matter of law should always bear in mind that a driver’s conduct which under normal circumstances would constitute negligence as a matter of law may, nevertheless, give rise to a question of fact w
  • Hathaway v. Dale Movers, Inc. 167 N.W.2d 32 Minn. 1969
  • Hathaway v. Dale Movers, Inc. 167 N.W.2d 32 Minn. 1969
    As in Hardy v. Anderson, 241 Minn. 478 , 63 N. W. (2d) 814 , there was no evidentiary issue as to defective lights on Kenneth Hathaway’s car, nor was there any evidence which would justify a jury in finding contributory negligence on his part by reason of any violation of the statute governing proper lights.
  • Kramer v. Kramer 162 N.W.2d 708 Minn. 1968
  • Kramer v. Kramer 162 N.W.2d 708 Minn. 1968
    This court made its attitude on the question of claimed improper argument known in Hardy v. Anderson, 241 Minn. 478, 483 , 63 N. W. (2d) 814, 818 , when it said: “* * * In arguing to the jury it is elementary that counsel is entitled to present his client’s case forcefully and fairly, and his efforts are not to be crippled by compelling him to run a course of technical hazards either when he draws factual inferences from conflictin
  • Connaker v. Hart 146 N.W.2d 607 Minn. 1966
  • Connaker v. Hart 146 N.W.2d 607 Minn. 1966
    Wimperis v. Satzinger, supra; Gave v. Pyrofax Gas Corp. supra; Kuether v. Locke, 261 Minn. 41 , 110 N. W. (2d) 539 ; Whelan v. Gould, 259 Minn. 203 , 106 N. W. (2d) 895 ; Hardy v. Anderson, 241 Minn. 478 , 63 N. W. (2d) 814 .
  • Wimperis v. Saltzinger 140 N.W.2d 323 Minn. 1966
  • Wimperis v. Saltzinger 140 N.W.2d 323 Minn. 1966
    Co. 244 Minn. 427 , 70 N. W. (2d) 358 ; Hardy v. Anderson, 241 Minn. 478 , 63 N. W. (2d) 814 ; Ryan v. Griffin, 241 Minn. 91 , 62 N. W. (2d) 504 ; Nees v. Minneapolis St.
  • State v. Bell 115 N.W.2d 468 Minn. 1962
  • State v. Bell 115 N.W.2d 468 Minn. 1962
    In Hardy v. Anderson, 241 Minn. 478 , 63 N. W. (2d) 814 , we held that, although a photograph of the locus in quo may not reflect condi *552 tions identical in every detail with those existing at the time of the occurrence in question, the court may exercise its discretion in admitting such photograph where it might be helpful to the jury and not mislea
  • Hammersten v. Reiling 115 N.W.2d 259 Minn. 1962
  • Hammersten v. Reiling 115 N.W.2d 259 Minn. 1962
    Co. 247 Minn. 368 , 77 N. W. (2d) 433 , 58 A. L. R. (2d) 921; Beebe v. Kleidon, 242 Minn. 521 , 65 N. W. (2d) 614 ; Hardy v. Anderson, 241 Minn. 478 , 63 N. W. (2d) 814 ; State v. Becker, 231 Minn. 174 , 42 N. W. (2d) 704 ; Brecht v. Town of Bergen, 182 Minn. 603 , .
  • Whelan Ex Rel. Whelan v. Gould 106 N.W.2d 893 Minn. 1960
  • Whelan Ex Rel. Whelan v. Gould 106 N.W.2d 893 Minn. 1960
    In Hardy v. Anderson, 241 Minn. 478, 481 , 63 N. W. (2d) 814, 817 , we said: “* * * jn t]je present case the jury could reasonably find that plaintiff’s vision was obscured by the snow which covered defendant’s automobile and caused it to blend with the surrounding street surface and that plaintiff, after he did see defendant’s car, was prevented by the
  • Connolly v. Nicollet Hotel 104 N.W.2d 721 Minn. 1960
  • Dick Weatherston's Associated Mechanical Services, Inc. v. Minnesota Mutual Life Insurance 100 N.W.2d 819 Minn. 1960
  • Dick Weatherston's Associated Mechanical Services, Inc. v. Minnesota Mutual Life Insurance 100 N.W.2d 819 Minn. 1960
    Hardy v. Anderson, 241 Minn. 478 , 63 N. W. (2d) 814 ; 1 Dunnell, Dig.
  • Meagher v. Kavli 97 N.W.2d 370 Minn. 1959
  • Meagher v. Kavli 97 N.W.2d 370 Minn. 1959
    9 Beebe v. Kleidon, 242 Minn. 521 , 65 N. W. (2d) 614 ; Hardy v. Anderson, 241 Minn. 478 , 63 N. W. (2d) 814 ; Willmar Gas Co. Inc. v. Duininck, 239 Minn. 173 , 58 N. W. (2d) 197 ; Randall v. Goodrich-Gamble Co. 244 Minn. 401 , 70 N. W. (2d) 261 ; Hallada v. G. N. Ry.
  • Johnson v. West Fargo Manufacturing Co. 95 N.W.2d 497 Minn. 1959
  • Johnson v. West Fargo Manufacturing Co. 95 N.W.2d 497 Minn. 1959
    See, also, Hardy v. Anderson, 241 Minn. 478 , 63 N. W. (2d) 814 .
  • Gruenhagen v. Brelje 89 N.W.2d 738 Minn. 1958
  • Gruenhagen v. Brelje 89 N.W.2d 738 Minn. 1958
    Co. 242 Minn. 157 , 64 N. W. (2d) 530 ; Hardy v. Anderson, 241 Minn. 478 , 63 N. W. (2d) 814 .
  • Fenton v. Minneapolis Street Railway Co. 89 N.W.2d 404 Minn. 1958
  • Fenton v. Minneapolis Street Railway Co. 89 N.W.2d 404 Minn. 1958
    10 See, Hammel v. Feigh, 143 Minn. 115 , ; Harris v. Breezy Point Lodge, Inc. 238 Minn. 322 , 56 N. W. (2d) 655 ; Nelson v. Twin City Motor Bus Co. 239 Minn. 276 , 58 N. W. (2d) 561 ; Hardy v. Anderson, 241 Minn. 478 , 63 N. W. (2d) 814 ; 14 Dunnell, Dig.
  • Thelen v. Spilman 86 N.W.2d 700 Minn. 1957
  • Thelen v. Spilman 86 N.W.2d 700 Minn. 1957
    12 See, Hardy v. Anderson, 241 Minn. 478 , 63 N. W. (2d) 814 ; Boutang v. Twin City Motor Bus Co. 248 Minn. 240 , 80 N. W. (2d) 30 .
  • Lee v. Lee 80 N.W.2d 529 Minn. 1957
  • Lee v. Lee 80 N.W.2d 529 Minn. 1957
    Co. 247 Minn. 368 , 77 N. W. (2d) 433 ; Nelson v. Twin City Motor Bus Co. 239 Minn. 276, 282 , 58 N. W. (2d) 561, 565 ; Hardy v. Anderson, 241 Minn. 478, 483 , 63 N. W. (2d) 814, 818 ; Smith v. Barry, 219 Minn. 182, 191 , 17 N. W. (2d) 324, 328 .
  • Boutang v. Twin City Motor Bus Co. 80 N.W.2d 30 Minn. 1956
  • Boutang v. Twin City Motor Bus Co. 80 N.W.2d 30 Minn. 1956
    What was said in Hardy v. Anderson, 241 Minn. 478, 483 , 63 N. W. (2d) 814, 818 , is applicable here: “* * * In arguing to the jury it is elementary that counsel is entitled to present his client’s case forcefully and fairly, and his efforts are not to be crippled by compelling him to run a course of technical hazards either when he draws factual inferences from conf
  • Fieve v. Emmeck 78 N.W.2d 343 Minn. 1956
  • Fieve v. Emmeck 78 N.W.2d 343 Minn. 1956
    Co. 247 Minn. 368 , 77 N. W. (2d) 433 ; Hardy v. Anderson, 241 Minn. 478 , 63 N. W. (2d) 814 ; 14 Dunnell, Dig.
  • Faust Ex Rel. Faust v. Przybilla 77 N.W.2d 737 Minn. 1956
  • Faust Ex Rel. Faust v. Przybilla 77 N.W.2d 737 Minn. 1956
    5 As we stated in Hardy v. Anderson, 241 Minn. 478, 481 , 63 N. W. (2d) 814 , 817: “* * * ^ litigant before seeking reversal on the ground of contributory negligence as a matter of law should always bear in mind that a driver’s conduct which under normal circumstances would constitute negligence as a matter of law may, nevertheless, give rise to a question of fact whe
  • Beebe v. Kleidon 65 N.W.2d 614 Minn. 1954