Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Caballero v. Litchfield Wood-Working Co. Inc., 74 N.W.2d 404.

30 citing documents.

In the Matter of the Civil Commitment Minn. 2021
Co. , ; see Caballero v. Litchfield Wood -Working Co. , (“Clear, positive, direct, and undisputed testimony by an unimpeached witness, which is not in itself contradictory or improbable, cannot be rejected or disregarded by either court or jury, unless the evidence discloses facts and circumstances which furnish a reasonable ground for so doing.
DREYLING v. Commissioner of Revenue 753 N.W.2d 698 Minn. 2008
DREYLING v. Commissioner of Revenue 753 N.W.2d 698 Minn. 2008
The Dreylings rely on Caballero v. Litchfield Wood-Working Co., 246 Minn. 124 , to argue that, because he presented undisputed testimony that he was a resident of Florida during the relevant time period, the burden shifted to the Commissioner to prove that Roger was not a Florida resident.
Maras v. Stilinovich 268 N.W.2d 541 Minn. 1978
Maras v. Stilinovich 268 N.W.2d 541 Minn. 1978
In Caballero v. Litchfield Wood-Working Co., Inc. 246 Minn. 124 , the court held that if the same diligence which produced the evidence after trial would have led to its discovery before trial relief need not be granted.
LeNeau v. Nessett 194 N.W.2d 580 Minn. 1972
LeNeau v. Nessett 194 N.W.2d 580 Minn. 1972
In Caballero v. Litchfield Wood-Working Co. Inc. 246 Minn. 124, 131 , this court stated: “A motion for a new trial on the ground of newly discovered evidence is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court, which must be exercised cautiously and sparingly, and its decision will not be disturbed on appeal except for a clear abuse of discretion.
Schunk v. Wieland 176 N.W.2d 119 Minn. 1970
Schunk v. Wieland 176 N.W.2d 119 Minn. 1970
Since plaintiff neither requested instructions nor objected to the instructions given, and the motion for a new trial fails to specify in what particular the instructions were erroneous, the trial court’s instructions, even if erroneous, have become the law of the case, Caballero v. Litchfield Wood-Working Co. Inc. 246 Minn. 124 , 74 N. W. (2d) 404 , and whether the evidence is sufficient to sustain the verdict must be determined by testing the evidence against the law as set forth in the trial
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.
Blake v. Denelsbeck 170 N.W.2d 337 Minn. 1969
Blake v. Denelsbeck 170 N.W.2d 337 Minn. 1969
have been found and produced at the trial.” While it is not entirely clear what constitutes reasonable diligence in the discovery of evidence, it is clear that— “* * * if the same diligence which led to the discovery of the new evidence after trial would have led to discovery had such diligence been exercised before trial, a new trial need not be granted.” Caballero v. Richfield Wood-Working Co. 246 Minn. 124, 131 , 74 N. W. (2d) 404, 409 .
State, by Mondale v. Mecklenburg 140 N.W.2d 310 Minn. 1966
State, by Mondale v. Mecklenburg 140 N.W.2d 310 Minn. 1966
In Caballero v. Litchfield Wood-Working Co. Inc. 246 Minn. 124, 127 , 74 N. W. (2d) 404, 407 , this court said: “* * * Unintentional misstatements and verbal errors or omissions in the charge, which have not been objected to before the jury retires — with a distinct statement to the trial court of the alleged errors and the grounds of the objection — , may not, however, be assign
In Re Estate of Murphy 269 Minn. 393 Minn. 1964
In Re Estate of Murphy 269 Minn. 393 Minn. 1964
[7] Caballero v. Litchfield Wood-Working Co. Inc. 246 Minn. 124 , 74 N.W.
Boraas v. Carlson 127 N.W.2d 439 Minn. 1964
Boraas v. Carlson 127 N.W.2d 439 Minn. 1964
Rule 51 of Rules of Civil Procedure; Caballero v. Litchfield Wood-Working Co. Inc. 246 Minn. 124 , 74 N. W. (2d) 404 ; Krafft v. Hirt, 260 Minn. 296 , 110 N. W. (2d) 14 ; Nadeau v. Melin, 260 Minn. 369 , 110 N. W. (2d) 29 .
State, by Lord v. Bradac 102 N.W.2d 34 Minn. 1960
State, by Lord v. Bradac 102 N.W.2d 34 Minn. 1960
Caballero v. Litchfield Wood-Working Co. Inc. 246 Minn. 124 , 74 N. W. (2d) 404 .
Anderson v. Mid-Motors, Inc. 98 N.W.2d 188 Minn. 1959
Anderson v. Mid-Motors, Inc. 98 N.W.2d 188 Minn. 1959
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. Inc. 246 Minn. 124 , 74 N. W. (2d) 404 (burden of proof); Satter v. Turner, 251 Minn. 1 , 86 N. W. (2d) 85
Coble v. Lacey 90 N.W.2d 314 Minn. 1958
Coble v. Lacey 90 N.W.2d 314 Minn. 1958
2 Caballero v. Litchfield Wood-Working Co. Inc. 246 Minn. 124 , 74 N. W. (2d) 404 ; Nygren v. Minneapolis St.
Olson v. Penkert 90 N.W.2d 193 Minn. 1958
Olson v. Penkert 90 N.W.2d 193 Minn. 1958
Caballero v. Litchfield Wood-Working Co. Inc. 246 Minn. 124 , 74 N. W. (2d) 404 ; Smith v. Otto Hendrickson Post 212, American Legion, 241 Minn. 46 , 62 N. W. (2d) 354 ; Hess v. Koskovitch, 241 Minn. 174 , 62 N. W. (2d) 806 ; Nelson v. Twin City Motor Bus Co. 239 Minn. 276 , 58 N. W. (2d) 561 ; Marion v. Miller, 237 Minn. 306 , 55 N. W. (2d) 52 ; MacIllravie v. St.
Person v. Sears, Roebuck & Co. 89 N.W.2d 694 Minn. 1958
In Re Estate of Sandstrom 252 Minn. 46 Minn. 1958
In Re Estate of Sandstrom 252 Minn. 46 Minn. 1958
(2d) 281 ; Caballero v. Litchfield Wood-Working Co. Inc. 246 Minn. 124 , 74 N.W.