DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Heise v. the JR Clark Co., 71 N.W.2d 818.

35 citing documents.

  • In the Matter of the Trust Created Under Agreement By and Between Eugene V. Stowell and Shirley Marie … Minn. Ct. App. 2018
    rt has held that rule 103.04’s broad language does not change the longstanding general rule “that ma tters such as trial procedure, evidentiary rulings and jury instructions are subject to appellate review only if there has been a motion for a new trial in which such matters have been assigned as error.” (citing Heise v. J.R. Clark, Co., 245 Minn. 179, 191, ).
  • Bobbie Teeple v. Estate of Dylan Cox Minn. Ct. App. 2015
  • Bobbie Teeple v. Estate of Dylan Cox Minn. Ct. App. 2015
    Sauter, d at 201-02; Heise v. J.R. Clark Co., 245 Minn. 179, 191, (citing cases); cf. Alpha Real Estate Co. v. Delta Dental 4 Plan, Tyroll v. Private Label Chemicals, Inc.
  • Frazier v. Burlington Northern Santa Fe Corp. 788 N.W.2d 770 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
  • Frazier v. Burlington Northern Santa Fe Corp. 788 N.W.2d 770 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
    Respondents rely on Heise v. J.R. Clark Co., 245 Minn. 179, 191 , (“A party is concluded by an instruction given at his own request....
  • Alpha Real Estate Co. of Rochester v. Delta Dental Plan of Minnesota 664 N.W.2d 303 Minn. 2003
  • Alpha Real Estate Co. of Rochester v. Delta Dental Plan of Minnesota 664 N.W.2d 303 Minn. 2003
    Moreover, we have consistently enunciated the Sauter rule in terms of “trial procedure, evidentiary rulings and jury instructions.” Tyroll, d at 56 (quoting Sauter, d at 201); see also, Heise v. J.R. Clark Co., 245 Minn. 179, 191
  • Sauter v. Wasemiller 389 N.W.2d 200 Minn. 1986
  • Sauter v. Wasemiller 389 N.W.2d 200 Minn. 1986
    Heise v. J.R. Clark Co., 245 Minn. 179, 191
  • Cal-Tank, Inc. v. Interco, Inc. 379 N.W.2d 717 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
  • Cal-Tank, Inc. v. Interco, Inc. 379 N.W.2d 717 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
    “Matters involving tidal procedure, evi-dentiary rulings, objections to the instructions, and the like are subject to review only providing there was a motion for a new trial in which such matters are assigned as error.” Antonson v. Ekvall, 289 Minn. 536, 539 , -90 (1971) (quoting Heise v. J.R. Clark, Co., 245 Minn. 179, 191 , ).
  • Pierce v. National Farmers Union Property & Casualty Co. 351 N.W.2d 366 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
  • Pierce v. National Farmers Union Property & Casualty Co. 351 N.W.2d 366 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
    Co., 305 Minn. 190, 194 , see Antonson v. Ekvall, 289 Minn. 536, 539 , -90 (1971); Hartman v. Blanding’s Inc., 288 Minn. 415, 423 , Heise v. J.R. Clark Co., 245 Minn. 179, 191
  • Jacoboski v. Prax 187 N.W.2d 125 Minn. 1971
  • Jacoboski v. Prax 187 N.W.2d 125 Minn. 1971
    Heise v. The J. R. Clark Co. 245 Minn. 179 , 71 N. W. (2d) 818 ; Smith v. Otto Hendrickson Post 212, American Legion, 241 Minn. 46 , 62 N. W. (2d) 354 ; Murray v. Wilson, 227 Minn. 365 , 35 N. W. (2d) 521 ; Strowbridge v. Winkler, 245 Minn. 97 , 71 N. W. (2d) 177 ; Sroga v. Lund, 259 Minn. 269 , 106 N. W. (2d) 913 ; 1 Dunnell, Dig.
  • Antonson v. Ekvall 186 N.W.2d 187 Minn. 1971
  • Antonson v. Ekvall 186 N.W.2d 187 Minn. 1971
    We held in Heise v. The J. R. Clark Co. 245 Minn. 179, 191 , 71 N. W. (2d) 818 , 826: “* * * Matters involving trial procedure, evidentiary rulings, objections to instructions, and the like are subject to review only providing there has been a motion for a new trial in which such matters are assigned as error.” Affirmed.
  • Hartman v. Blanding's Inc. 181 N.W.2d 466 Minn. 1970
  • Hartman v. Blanding's Inc. 181 N.W.2d 466 Minn. 1970
    Heise v. The J. R. Clark Co. 245 Minn. 179 , 71 N. W. (2d) 818 ; Olson v. Mullen, 244 Minn. 31 , 68 N. W. (2d) 640 ; Maust v. Maust, 222 Minn. 135 , 23 N. W. (2d) 537 ; Potvin v. Potvin, 177 Minn. 53 , .
  • Baldwin v. CHICAGO AND NORTHWESTERN RAILWAY CO. 171 N.W.2d 89 Minn. 1969
  • Baldwin v. CHICAGO AND NORTHWESTERN RAILWAY CO. 171 N.W.2d 89 Minn. 1969
    See, also, Caballero v. Litchfield Wood-Working Co. 246 Minn. 124 , 74 N. W. (2d) 404 ; Heise v. J. R. Clark Co. 245 Minn. 179 , 71 N. W. (2d) 818 ; Davies v. Land O’ Lakes Racing Assn. 244 Minn. 248 , 69 N. W. (2d) 642 ; Zuercher v. Northern Jobbing Co. 243 Minn. 166 , 66 N. W. (2d) 892 ; Nygren v. Minneapolis St.
  • Honeymead Products Co. v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. 132 N.W.2d 741 Minn. 1965
  • Honeymead Products Co. v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. 132 N.W.2d 741 Minn. 1965
    Peterson v. Township of Manchester, 162 Minn. 486 , ; Heise v. J. R. Clark Co. 245 Minn. 179, 191 , 71 N. W. (2d) 818, 826 .
  • Donaldson v. Kohner 118 N.W.2d 446 Minn. 1962
  • Donaldson v. Kohner 118 N.W.2d 446 Minn. 1962
    1 Holt v. Swenson, 252 Minn. 510 , 90 N. W. (2d) 724 ; Heise v. J. R. Clark Co. 245 Minn. 179 , 71 N. W. (2d) 818 .
  • Jensen v. Aaby 111 N.W.2d 779 Minn. 1961
  • Jensen v. Aaby 111 N.W.2d 779 Minn. 1961
    Heise v. The J. R. Clark Co. 245 Minn. 179 , 71 N. W. (2d) 818 .
  • Atkins v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp. 104 N.W.2d 888 Minn. 1960
  • Atkins v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp. 104 N.W.2d 888 Minn. 1960
    Co. 248 Minn. 319 , 79 N. W. (2d) 688 ; Heise v. J. R. Clark Co. 245 Minn. 179 , 71 N. W. (2d) 818 ; Ellis v. Lindmark, 177 Minn. 390 , ; Smith v. Peerless Glass Co. 259 N. Y. 292 , 181 N. E. 576 ; Prosser, Torts (2 ed.) § 84.
  • Beck v. Spindler 99 N.W.2d 670 Minn. 1959
  • Beck v. Spindler 99 N.W.2d 670 Minn. 1959
    Heise v. J. R. Clark Co. 245 Minn. 179 , 71 N. W. (2d) 818 ; Hartmon v. National Heater Co. 240 Minn. 264 , 60 N. W. (2d) 804 ; Lovejoy v. Minneapolis-Moline Power Imp.
  • Anderson v. Mid-Motors, Inc. 98 N.W.2d 188 Minn. 1959
  • Anderson v. Mid-Motors, Inc. 98 N.W.2d 188 Minn. 1959
    Minn. 122 , 78 N. W. (2d) 343 ; Swigerd v. City of Ortonville, 246 Minn. 339 , 75 N. W. (2d) 217 (proximate cause); Leman v. Standard Oil Co. 246 Minn. 271 , 74 N. W. (2d) 513 (standard of care of a driver of a car in which plaintiff was riding as passenger); Greenberg v. Holfeltz, 244 Minn. 175 , 69 N. W. (2d) 369 ; Hess v. Koskovitch, 241 Minn. 174 , 62 N. W. (2d) 806 ; Heise v. J. R. Clark Co. 245 Minn. 179 , 71 N. W. (2d) 818 (contributory negligence); Caballero v. Litchfield Wood-Working Co
  • Lovejoy v. Minneapolis-Moline Power Implement Co. 79 N.W.2d 688 Minn. 1956
  • Lovejoy v. Minneapolis-Moline Power Implement Co. 79 N.W.2d 688 Minn. 1956
    2 Schubert v. J. R. Clark Co. 49 Minn. 331 , , 15 L. R. A. 818; Heise v. J. R. Clark Co. 245 Minn. 179 , 71 N. W. (2d) 818 ; Hartmon v. National Heater Co. 240 Minn. 264 , 60 N. W. (2d) 804 ; see, also, Restatement, Torts, §§ 388 to 390, 394, 395; MacPherson v. Buick Motor Co. 217 N. Y. 382 , 111 N. E. 1050 , L. R. A. 1916F, 696; DiVello v. Gardner Machine Co. (Ohio) 102 N. E. (2d) 289; but see Wood v. General Elec.