Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Briggs v. Chicago Great Western Railway Co., 80 N.W.2d 625.

40 citing documents.

Blue Earth County State of Minnesota v. Lee Wayne Young, Jr. Procaccini, J. Dissenting, Hudson, C.J., Thissen, J Minn. 2026
Co., (stating that proof of inconsistency by extrinsic evidence becomes unnecessary “[o]nce a witness has unequivocally admitted having previously made inconsistent statements” (emphasis D-8 added)); 2 The district court abused its discretion when
In re the Marriage of: Angie Lynn Magnuson Swierzewski v. David Matthew Swierzewski Minn. Ct. App. 2026
Robert Shane Belzer v. American Family Mutual Insurance Company Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Robert Shane Belzer v. American Family Mutual Insurance Company Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Co., 248 Minn. 418, 425, (stating further that “a new trial should not be granted for such misconduct if the trial court is reasonably certain that no prejudice resulted”).
Muller v. Rogers 534 N.W.2d 724 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
Muller v. Rogers 534 N.W.2d 724 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
Briggs v. Chicago, Great W. Ry., 248 Minn. 418, 428
Marriage of Sheeran v. Sheeran 401 N.W.2d 111 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Marriage of Sheeran v. Sheeran 401 N.W.2d 111 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Briggs v. Chicago Great Western Railway Co., 248 Minn. 418, 427
Danielson v. Johnson 366 N.W.2d 309 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Danielson v. Johnson 366 N.W.2d 309 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Co., 248 Minn. 418, 429 , ).
Farmers Union Grain Terminal Ass'n v. Industrial Electric Co. 365 N.W.2d 275 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Farmers Union Grain Terminal Ass'n v. Industrial Electric Co. 365 N.W.2d 275 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Briggs v. Chicago *278 Great Western Railway Co., 248 Minn. 418, 427
Anunti v. Payette 268 N.W.2d 52 Minn. 1978
Anunti v. Payette 268 N.W.2d 52 Minn. 1978
Co., 248 Minn. 418 , Annotation, 63 A.L.R.2d 1393 .
Wenner v. Gulf Oil Corp. 264 N.W.2d 374 Minn. 1978
Wenner v. Gulf Oil Corp. 264 N.W.2d 374 Minn. 1978
Co., 248 Minn. 418, 429 , stated: “* * * Whether a hypothetical question presents an adequate foundation for an expert opinion rests largely in the discretion of the trial court and its decision will not be reversed except for a clear abuse of that discretion.
Busch v. Busch Construction, Inc. 262 N.W.2d 377 Minn. 1977
Busch v. Busch Construction, Inc. 262 N.W.2d 377 Minn. 1977
Co., 248 Minn. 418, 429 , : “ * * * Whether a hypothetical question presents an adequate foundation for an expert opinion rests largely in the discretion of the trial court and its decision will not be reversed except for a clear abuse of that discretion.
State v. Schweppe 237 N.W.2d 609 Minn. 1975
State v. Schweppe 237 N.W.2d 609 Minn. 1975
Bisbee v. Ruppert 235 N.W.2d 364 Minn. 1975
Bisbee v. Ruppert 235 N.W.2d 364 Minn. 1975
248 Minn. 418 , Weber v. McCarthy, 214 Minn. 76
Olberg v. Minneapolis Gas Company 191 N.W.2d 418 Minn. 1971
Olberg v. Minneapolis Gas Company 191 N.W.2d 418 Minn. 1971
Co. 248 Minn. 418 , Kime v. Koch, 227 Minn. 372 , Thoreson v. Quinn, 126 Minn. 48 , Lyons v. Dee, 88 Minn. 490
City of Bloomington v. Vinge 169 N.W.2d 752 Minn. 1969
City of Bloomington v. Vinge 169 N.W.2d 752 Minn. 1969
Co. 248 Minn. 418, 425 , 80 N. W. (2d) 625 , 632: “Although it is misconduct for jurors to take an unauthorized view of the scene of an accident, or of an instrumentality involved in an accident, a new trial should not be granted for such misconduct if the trial court is reasonably certain that no prejudice resulted, and the duty of de
Sjodin v. Lund 152 N.W.2d 718 Minn. 1967
Sjodin v. Lund 152 N.W.2d 718 Minn. 1967
Co. 248 Minn. 418 , 80 N. W. (2d) 625 , we stated that although it was misconduct for jurors to take an unauthorized view of the scene of an accident or of an instrumentality involved in an accident, a new trial should not be granted for such misconduct if the trial court was reasonably certain that no prejudice re- *481 suited.
State v. Collins 150 N.W.2d 850 Minn. 1967
State v. Collins 150 N.W.2d 850 Minn. 1967
Co. 248 Minn. 418, 427 , 80 N. W. (2d) 625, 633 .
State v. Turnbull 127 N.W.2d 157 Minn. 1964
State v. Turnbull 127 N.W.2d 157 Minn. 1964
Co. 248 Minn. 418 , 80 N. W. (2d) 625 .
Larson v. Davidson-Boutell Co. 102 N.W.2d 712 Minn. 1960
Larson v. Davidson-Boutell Co. 102 N.W.2d 712 Minn. 1960
Co. 248 Minn. 418 , 80 N. W. (2d) 625 , that a qualified expert witness is not permitted to base his opinion upon the opinion of another expert witness, or upon the observations of fact reported by another expert witness, unless such observed facts are included in a hypothesis to be supported by other evidence as to their truth.
Wurdemann v. Hjelm 102 N.W.2d 811 Minn. 1960
Wurdemann v. Hjelm 102 N.W.2d 811 Minn. 1960
Co. 248 Minn. 418 , *466 427, 80 N. W. (2d) 625, 633 , this court also said that “if such [newly discovered] evidence is merely cumulative, contradictory, or impeaching of evidence adduced during the trial, a denial of a new trial is not an abuse of discretion.” In the instant case the district court said in its memorandum: “* * * Whil
Romano v. Dibbs 98 N.W.2d 146 Minn. 1959
Romano v. Dibbs 98 N.W.2d 146 Minn. 1959
Co. 248 Minn. 418, 429 , 80 N. W. (2d) 625, 634, 635 , we stated: “* * * Long ago this court pointed out that the technical rules as to hypothetical questions are relaxing and this is a step in the right direction.” We also observed in that case that “an adversary enjoys certain safeguards in that he may on cross-examination supply omi
Minder v. Peterson 93 N.W.2d 699 Minn. 1958
Minder v. Peterson 93 N.W.2d 699 Minn. 1958
Co. 248 Minn. 418 , 80 N. W. (2d) 625 ; Skog v. Pomush, 219 Minn. 322 , 17 N. W. (2d) 641 .