Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Hagen v. Snow, 69 N.W.2d 100.

36 citing documents.

Alholm v. Wilt 394 N.W.2d 488 Minn. 1986
Alholm v. Wilt 394 N.W.2d 488 Minn. 1986
In so doing, he relies on Hagen v. Snow, 244 Minn. 101 , and Nubbe v. Hardy Continental Hotel System of Minnesota, 225 Minn. 496
Ouellette Ex Rel. Ouellette v. Subak 379 N.W.2d 125 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Ouellette Ex Rel. Ouellette v. Subak 379 N.W.2d 125 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
for rev. denied, (Minn. August 19, 1985), we found the failure to properly instruct the jury on the relevant law required a new trial, stating: In Hagen v. Snow, 244 Minn. 101 , the court said: [E]ven a request for an instruction which is not entirely perfect may in some situations impose upon the court the duty to give a more specific instruction on a particular issue, where it soundly appears that such an instruction is needful to enable the jury to intelligently det
Clark v. Miller 378 N.W.2d 838 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Clark v. Miller 378 N.W.2d 838 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Hagen v. Snow, 244 Minn. 101
Kalsbeck v. Westview Clinic, P.A. 375 N.W.2d 861 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Kalsbeck v. Westview Clinic, P.A. 375 N.W.2d 861 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
at 367 ; Hagen v. Snow, 244 Minn. 101, 106
Chacos v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. 368 N.W.2d 343 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Chacos v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. 368 N.W.2d 343 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
In Hagen v. Snow, 244 Minn. 101 , the court said: [E]ven a request for an instruction which is not entirely perfect may in some situations impose upon the court the duty to give a more specific instruction on a particular issue, where it soundly appears that such an instruction is needful to enable the jury to intelligently det
Sandhofer v. Abbott-Northwestern Hospital 283 N.W.2d 362 Minn. 1979
Sandhofer v. Abbott-Northwestern Hospital 283 N.W.2d 362 Minn. 1979
Hagen v. Snow, 244 Minn. 101
Lhotka v. Larson 238 N.W.2d 870 Minn. 1976
Lhotka v. Larson 238 N.W.2d 870 Minn. 1976
Hagen v. Snow, 244 Minn. 101 , Luther v. Standard Conveyor Co. 252 Minn. 135 , Phillips v. G. N. Ry.
Ramfjord v. Sullivan 222 N.W.2d 541 Minn. 1974
Ramfjord v. Sullivan 222 N.W.2d 541 Minn. 1974
th reasonable safety, and then only after giving a clearly audible warning by sounding the horn if any pedestrian may be affected by the movement or after giving an appropriate signal in the manner hereinafter provided in the event any other vehicle may be affected by the movement.” The two cases cited by plaintiff are relevant; however, per *244 haps more applicable is the case of Hagen v. Snow, 244 Minn. 101, 106 , which states: “It is well established that, ‘as against a mere general or abstr
Malik v. Johnson 219 N.W.2d 631 Minn. 1974
Malik v. Johnson 219 N.W.2d 631 Minn. 1974
Usually it is preferable to give a general charge, if practicable, upon the whole law of the case rather than to run the risk of overemphasizing one side of the case or confusing the jury as is often done by giving requested instructions or particularizing upon specific items.” Plaintiffs place principal reliance on Hagen v. Snow, 244 Minn. 101, 106 , which states: “* * * It is well established that, ‘as against a mere general or abstract charge, a party is entitled to a specific instruction on
Holweger v. Great Northern Railway Co. 130 N.W.2d 354 Minn. 1964
Holweger v. Great Northern Railway Co. 130 N.W.2d 354 Minn. 1964
Co. 257 Minn, 195, 100 N. W. (2d) 765 ; Hagen v. Snow, 244 Minn. 101 , 69 N. W. (2d) 100 ; Jacobson v. Chicago & N. W. Ry.
Martinson v. Scherbel 129 N.W.2d 802 Minn. 1964
Martinson v. Scherbel 129 N.W.2d 802 Minn. 1964
Co. 213 Minn. 106, 113 , 5 N. W. (2d) 492, 496 ; Hagen v. Snow, 244 Minn. 101 , 69 N. W. (2d) 100 ; Borris v. Cox, 245 Minn. 515 , 73 N. W. (2d) 372 ; Lynghaug v. Payte, 247 Minn. 186 , 76 N. W. (2d) 660 , 56 A. L. R. (2d) 1090.
Waldstein v. Amann 208 N.W.2d 215 Minn. 1961
Waldstein v. Amann 208 N.W.2d 215 Minn. 1961
In .support of his contention that it is error to deny a litigant a requested specific instruction based on his theory of a particular issue where there is evidence to support such theory and where such an instruction would enable a jury to determine the issues of the case intelligently, defendant cites as controlling Hagen v. Snow, 244 Minn. 101 , 69 N. W. (2d) 100 ; Manion v. Tweedy, 257 Minn. 59 , 100 N. W. *516 (2d) 124; and Phillips v. G. N. Ry.
Phillips v. Great Northern Railway Co. 100 N.W.2d 765 Minn. 1960
Phillips v. Great Northern Railway Co. 100 N.W.2d 765 Minn. 1960
In Hagen v. Snow, 244 Minn. 101, 106 , 69 N. W. (2d) 100, 103 , we said: “It is well established that, ‘as against a mere general or abstract charge, a party is entitled to a specific instruction on his theory of the case, if there is evidence to support it and if a proper request for such an instruction is made.’ Chicago & N. W. Ry.
Manion v. Tweedy 100 N.W.2d 124 Minn. 1959
Manion v. Tweedy 100 N.W.2d 124 Minn. 1959
It is plaintiffs claim that under Hagen v. Snow, 244 Minn. 101 , 69 N. W. (2d) 100 , he was entitled to a specific instruction on his theory of the case as against a general or abstract instruction.
Floen v. Sund 96 N.W.2d 563 Minn. 1959
Floen v. Sund 96 N.W.2d 563 Minn. 1959
3 Luther v. Standard Conveyor Co. 252 Minn. 135 , 89 N. W. (2d) 179 ; Hagen v. Snow, 244 Minn. 101 , 69 N. W. (2d) 100 ; Chicago & N. W. Ry.
Luther v. Standard Conveyor Co. 89 N.W.2d 179 Minn. 1958
Luther v. Standard Conveyor Co. 89 N.W.2d 179 Minn. 1958
7 Hagen v. Snow, 244 Minn. 101 , 69 N. W. (2d) 100 ; Chicago & N. W. Ry.
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
Hagen v. Snow, 244 Minn. 101 , 69 N. W. (2d) 100 .
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 .