DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Carroll v. Pratt, 76 N.W.2d 693.

30 citing documents.

  • City Market & Halal Meat, Inc., Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2026
    And we must affirm a damages award that is “within the mathematical limitations established by the various witnesses and is otherwise reasonably supported by the evidence as a whole.”
  • State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
    The witness “must also be given the opportunity to ‘admit, deny, or explain the inconsistency in order for the statement to be admissible to impeach the witness.’” (quoting State v. Martin , ); see also Carroll v. Pratt , 5 (holding that “it is usually necessary to lay a proper foundation first on the cross-examination of the witness to be impeached by asking him [or her] whether he [or she] made the alleged inconsistent statement, giving its substance and the time, place, and person to whom mad
  • Nicholas Houchins, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
    And, under well-established law, “a witness who has testified to material facts in a case may be impeached by showing that he has previously made statements relating to those facts which are contrary to his present testimony.” (footnote omitted).
  • Michelle J. Duppong, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
    for the proposition that the mere existence of an attorney-client relationship does not authorize the attorney to make admissions on behalf of his client.
  • State v. Lopez-Ramos 913 N.W.2d 695 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
  • State v. Lopez-Ramos 913 N.W.2d 695 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
    See Carroll v. Pratt , 247 Minn. 198 , 204, , 698 (1956) (discussing whether an attorney had the authority to make extrajudicial admissions on behalf of client); Rent-A-Scooter, Inc. v. Universal Underwriters Ins.
  • Sorchaga v. Ride Auto, LLC 893 N.W.2d 360 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
  • Sorchaga v. Ride Auto, LLC 893 N.W.2d 360 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
    long as fits finding is within the mathematical limitations established by the various witnesses and is otherwise reasonably supported by the evidence as a *372 whole, such finding must be sustained.” Carroll v. Pratt, 247 Minn. 198, 202
  • State v. Barber 494 N.W.2d 497 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
  • State v. Barber 494 N.W.2d 497 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
    Carroll v. Pratt, 247 Minn. 198, 203 , -98 (1956).
  • Crittenden v. Whippoorwill Ranch Campground, Inc. 406 N.W.2d 624 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
  • Crittenden v. Whippoorwill Ranch Campground, Inc. 406 N.W.2d 624 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
    Carroll v. Pratt, 247 Minn. 198, 202
  • Rands v. Forest Lake Lumber Mart, Inc. 402 N.W.2d 565 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
  • Rands v. Forest Lake Lumber Mart, Inc. 402 N.W.2d 565 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
    In setting an award, the jury need not adopt the figures of any particular witness; it is sufficient if the result is “within the mathematical limitations established by the various witnesses and is otherwise reasonably supported by the evidence as a whole.” Carroll v. Pratt, 247 Minn. 198, 202
  • Fudally v. Ching Johnson Builders, Inc. 360 N.W.2d 436 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
  • Fudally v. Ching Johnson Builders, Inc. 360 N.W.2d 436 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
    In Carroll v. Pratt, 247 Minn. 198, 202 , the Minnesota Supreme Court stated: It is elementary that a trial court need not adopt the exact figures of any witness in determining * * * damages * *, and as long as its finding is within the mathematical limitations established by the various witnesses and is otherwise reasonably
  • Neilan v. Braun 354 N.W.2d 856 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
  • Neilan v. Braun 354 N.W.2d 856 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
    Carroll v. Pratt, 247 Minn. 198, 202
  • Wenner v. Gulf Oil Corp. 264 N.W.2d 374 Minn. 1978
  • Wenner v. Gulf Oil Corp. 264 N.W.2d 374 Minn. 1978
    *379 This problem was addressed by this court in Pow-Bel Construction Corp. v. Gondek, 291 Minn. 386, 390 , where, quoting from Carroll v. Pratt, 247 Minn. 198, 204 , this court stated: “ * * * The cases are almost unanimous that out-of-court admissions of fact by an attorney, whether written or oral, which have not been made for the specific judicial purpose of dispensing with proof or for influencing the procedure in the case, are inadmissible in
  • Klingelhutz v. Grover 236 N.W.2d 610 Minn. 1975
  • Klingelhutz v. Grover 236 N.W.2d 610 Minn. 1975
    As we stated in Carroll v. Pratt, 247 Minn. 198, 202 , : “* * * It is elementary that a trial court need not adopt the exact figures of any witness in determining either damages or the extent of performance, and as long as its finding is within the mathematical limitations established by the various witnesses and is otherwise reasonably s
  • Fick v. Wolfinger 198 N.W.2d 146 Minn. 1972
  • Fick v. Wolfinger 198 N.W.2d 146 Minn. 1972
    See, Price v. Grieger, 244 Minn. 466 , Carroll v. Pratt, 247 Minn. 198
  • Pow-Bel Construction Corporation v. Gondek 192 N.W.2d 812 Minn. 1971
  • Pow-Bel Construction Corporation v. Gondek 192 N.W.2d 812 Minn. 1971
    In Carroll v. Pratt, 247 Minn. 198, 204 , this court held: “* * * The cases are almost unanimous that out-of-court admissions of fact by an attorney, whether written or oral, which have not been made for the specific judicial purpose of dispensing with proof or for influencing the procedure in the case, are inadmissible in
  • State v. Collins 150 N.W.2d 850 Minn. 1967
  • State v. Collins 150 N.W.2d 850 Minn. 1967
    Defendant cites Carroll v. Pratt, 247 Minn. 198, 203 , 76 N. W. (2d) 693, 697 , as controlling, but such objection was made at trial in the Carroll case.
  • Minneapolis Street Railway Co. v. City of Minneapolis 86 N.W.2d 657 Minn. 1957
  • Minneapolis Street Railway Co. v. City of Minneapolis 86 N.W.2d 657 Minn. 1957
    See, Carroll v. Pratt, 247 Minn. 198 , 76 N. W. (2d) 693 ; Knutson v. Lasher, 219 Minn. 594 , 18 N. W. (2d) 688 ; Lovrenchich v. Collins, 233 Minn. 183 , 46 N. W. (2d) 264 .