Cited by
Opinions in Minnesota that cite Brannan v. Shertzer, 64 N.W.2d 755.
-
Herbert B. Fick, Respondent,
Minn. Ct. App. 2018
“There is no fixed standard by which loss for injuries can be determined.” Brannan v. Shertzer, 242 Minn. 277, 287, d 755, 761 (1954).
- Raze v. Mueller 587 N.W.2d 645 Minn. 1999
-
Raze v. Mueller
587 N.W.2d 645
Minn. 1999
See also Walser v. Vinge, 275 Minn. 230, 235 , (concluding that a jury must take into consideration all of the elements of damage which the plaintiff proved); Brannan v. Shertzer, 242 Minn. 277, 283-84 , -60 (1954) (determining that the plaintiff did not prove substantial general damages because "her symptoms and ailments antedated the accident and were in no way related to it.”).
- Bisbee v. Ruppert 235 N.W.2d 364 Minn. 1975
-
Bisbee v. Ruppert
235 N.W.2d 364
Minn. 1975
10 See, e. g., Brannan v. Shertzer, 242 Minn. 277 , Stacy v. Goff, 241 Minn. 301
- Kinning v. Sutton 220 N.W.2d 485 Minn. 1974
-
Kinning v. Sutton
220 N.W.2d 485
Minn. 1974
Krueger v. Knutson, 261 Minn. 144 , Brannan v. Shertzer, 242 Minn. 277
- Gibson v. Sandstrom 216 N.W.2d 833 Minn. 1974
-
Gibson v. Sandstrom
216 N.W.2d 833
Minn. 1974
Brannan v. Shertzer, 242 Minn. 277
- Bastianson v. Forschen 196 N.W.2d 451 Minn. 1972
-
Bastianson v. Forschen
196 N.W.2d 451
Minn. 1972
1 Dale v. Pushor, 246 Minn. 254 , Brannan v. Shertzer, 242 Minn. 277 , Anderson v. Minneapolis, St.
- Jacoboski v. Prax 187 N.W.2d 125 Minn. 1971
-
Jacoboski v. Prax
187 N.W.2d 125
Minn. 1971
Brannan v. Shertzer, 242 Minn. 277 , 64 N. W. (2d) 755 ; Bryant v. N. P. Ry.
- Weiss v. Great Northern Railway Company 176 N.W.2d 109 Minn. 1970
-
Weiss v. Great Northern Railway Company
176 N.W.2d 109
Minn. 1970
Brannan v. Shertzer, 242 Minn. 277 , 64 N. W. (2d) 755 ; Gardner v. Germain, 264 Minn. 61 , 117 N. W. (2d) 759 ; Bryant v. N. P. Ry.
- Vanderlinde v. Wehle 144 N.W.2d 547 Minn. 1966
-
Vanderlinde v. Wehle
144 N.W.2d 547
Minn. 1966
Brannan v. Shertzer, 242 Minn. 277 , 64 N. W. (2d) 755 ; Cameron v. Evans, 241 Minn. 200 , 62 N. W. (2d) 793 ; Hallada v. G. N. Ry.
- Backman v. Fitch 137 N.W.2d 574 Minn. 1965
-
Backman v. Fitch
137 N.W.2d 574
Minn. 1965
Mr. Justice Knutson, speaking for this court in Brannan v. Shertzer, 242 Minn. 277, 287 , 64 N. W. (2d) 755, 761 , said: “* * * A verdict cannot be set aside simply because this court may be of the opinion that it was not adequate.
- Krueger v. Knutson 111 N.W.2d 526 Minn. 1961
-
Krueger v. Knutson
111 N.W.2d 526
Minn. 1961
This court in Brannan v. Shertzer, 242 Minn. 277, 287 , 64 N. W. (2d) 755, 761 , said: “* * * A verdict cannot be set aside simply because this court may be of the opinion that it was not adequate.
- Webster v. Schwartz 81 N.W.2d 867 Minn. 1957
-
Webster v. Schwartz
81 N.W.2d 867
Minn. 1957
3 *230 However, in Brannan v. Shertzer, 242 Minn. 277, 281 , 64 N. W. (2d) 755, 757 , in considering Rule 15.01, we stated: “Rule 15.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure provides that a party, after a responsive pleading has been served, may amend his pleading only by leave of court or by written consent of the adverse party.
- Genzel v. Halvorson 80 N.W.2d 854 Minn. 1957
-
Genzel v. Halvorson
80 N.W.2d 854
Minn. 1957
Berg v. Ullevig, 244 Minn. 390 , 70 N. W. (2d) 133 ; Greenberg v. Holfeltz, 244 Minn. 175 , 69 N. W. (2d) 369 ; Brannan v. Shertzer, 242 Minn. 277 , 64 N. W. (2d) 755 .
- Dale Ex Rel. Smith v. Pushor 75 N.W.2d 595 Minn. 1956
-
Dale Ex Rel. Smith v. Pushor
75 N.W.2d 595
Minn. 1956
7 The footnotes referred to in the above quotation are as follows: “8 Brannan v. Shertzer, 242 Minn. 277 , 64 N. W. (2d) 755 ; 1 Youngquist & Blacik, Minnesota Rules Practice, p. 476.
- Anderson v. Enfield 70 N.W.2d 409 Minn. 1955
-
Anderson v. Enfield
70 N.W.2d 409
Minn. 1955
Colstad v. Levine, 248 Minn. 279 , 67 N. W. (2d) 648 ; Brannan v. Shertzer, 242 Minn. 277 , 64 N. W. (2d) 755 ; see, Wright, Minnesota Rules, p. 101.
- Berg v. Ullevig 70 N.W.2d 133 Minn. 1955
-
Berg v. Ullevig
70 N.W.2d 133
Minn. 1955
This court in the recent case of Brannan v. Shertzer, 242 Minn. 277, 287 , 64 N. W. (2d) 755, 761 , in discussing the inadequacy or the excessiveness of verdicts, said: “* * * ^ verdict cannot be set aside simply because this court may be of the opinion that it was not adequate.
- Colstad v. Levine 67 N.W.2d 648 Minn. 1954
-
Colstad v. Levine
67 N.W.2d 648
Minn. 1954
8 Brannan v. Shertzer, 242 Minn. 277 , 64 N. W. (2d) 755 ; 1 Yonngquist & Blacik, Minnesota Rules Practice, p. 476.
- Meemken v. O'HARA 66 N.W.2d 601 Minn. 1954