Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Lovejoy v. Minneapolis-Moline Power Implement Co., 79 N.W.2d 688.

87 citing documents.

Jacoboski v. Prax 187 N.W.2d 125 Minn. 1971
Co. 248 Minn. 319, 325 , 79 N. W. (2d) 688, 693 , this court expressed the test for granting a motion for a directed verdict as follows: “* * * [I]t is elementary that a motion for a directed verdict— “ ‘* * * accepts the view of the entire evidence most favorable to the adverse party and admits the credibility (except in extreme cases
J. J. Brooksbank Co. v. American Motors Corp. 184 N.W.2d 796 Minn. 1971
J. J. Brooksbank Co. v. American Motors Corp. 184 N.W.2d 796 Minn. 1971
Co. 248 Minn. 319 , 79 N. W. (2d) 688 .
Bossons v. the Hertz Corporation 176 N.W.2d 882 Minn. 1970
Bossons v. the Hertz Corporation 176 N.W.2d 882 Minn. 1970
Co. 248 Minn. 319 , 79 N. W. (2d) 688 .
Schmidt v. Beninga 173 N.W.2d 401 Minn. 1970
Schmidt v. Beninga 173 N.W.2d 401 Minn. 1970
Co. 248 Minn. 319 , 79 N. W. (2d) 688 .
Housing & Redevelopment Authority v. Kieffer Bros. Investment & Construction Co. 170 N.W.2d 862 Minn. 1969
Housing & Redevelopment Authority v. Kieffer Bros. Investment & Construction Co. 170 N.W.2d 862 Minn. 1969
Co. 248 Minn. 319 , 79 N. W. (2d) 688 ; Berg v. Ullevig, 244 Minn. 390 , 70 N. W. (2d) 133 ; Woyak v. Konieske, 237 Minn. 213 , 54 N. W. (2d) 649 , 33 A. L. R. (2d) 1241.
Swanson Ex Rel. Swanson v. Chatterton 160 N.W.2d 662 Minn. 1968
Swanson Ex Rel. Swanson v. Chatterton 160 N.W.2d 662 Minn. 1968
Co. 248 Minn. 319 , 79 N. W. (2d) 688 ; Roeder v. North American Life Ins.
McCormack v. Hankscraft Company 154 N.W.2d 488 Minn. 1967
McCormack v. Hankscraft Company 154 N.W.2d 488 Minn. 1967
Co. 248 Minn. 319 , 79 N.W.
Austin v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Co. 152 N.W.2d 136 Minn. 1967
Austin v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Co. 152 N.W.2d 136 Minn. 1967
Co. 248 Minn. 319 , 79 N. W. (2d) 688 .
Bates v. ROOT-LOWELL MANUFACTURING COMPANY 149 N.W.2d 507 Minn. 1967
Bates v. ROOT-LOWELL MANUFACTURING COMPANY 149 N.W.2d 507 Minn. 1967
Co. 248 Minn. 319 , 79 N. W. (2d) *225 688; Bridges v. Hillman, 249 Minn. 451 , 82 N. W. (2d) 615 ; Johnson v. West Fargo Mfg.
Westerberg v. School District No. 792, Todd County 148 N.W.2d 312 Minn. 1967
Westerberg v. School District No. 792, Todd County 148 N.W.2d 312 Minn. 1967
Co. 248 Minn. 319 , 79 N. W. (2d) 688 , probably goes as far as any in holding a manufacturer liable for a defect in design, where an injury resulted from a use we held might have been foreseen.
Hardware Mutual Casualty Co. v. Chrysler Corp. 142 N.W.2d 728 Minn. 1966
Hardware Mutual Casualty Co. v. Chrysler Corp. 142 N.W.2d 728 Minn. 1966
Co. 248 Minn. 319 , 79 N. W. (2d) 688 ; Hofstedt v. International Harvester Co. 256 Minn. 453 , 98 N. W. (2d) 808 ; Grant v. Malkerson Sales, Inc. 259 Minn. 419 , 108 N. W. (2d) 347 ; Rosin v. International Harvester Co. 262 Minn. 445 , 115 N. W. (2d) 50 .
Bloomquist v. William H. Ziegler Co. Inc. 133 N.W.2d 484 Minn. 1965
Bloomquist v. William H. Ziegler Co. Inc. 133 N.W.2d 484 Minn. 1965
Co. 248 Minn. 319 , 79 N. W. (2d) 688 ; Erickson v. Strickler, 252 Minn. 351 , 90 N. W. (2d) 232 .
Miller v. MacAlester College 115 N.W.2d 666 Minn. 1962
Rosin v. International Harvester Co. 115 N.W.2d 50 Minn. 1962
Rosin v. International Harvester Co. 115 N.W.2d 50 Minn. 1962
Lovejoy v. Minneapolis-Moline Power Implement Co. 248 Minn. 319 , 79 N. W. (2d) 688 ; Hofstedt v. International Harvester Co. 256 Minn. 453 , 98 N. W. (2d) 808 ; Grant v. Malkerson Sales, Inc. 259 Minn. 419 , 108 N. W. (2d) 347 .
Miller v. MacAlester College 115 N.W.2d 666 Minn. 1962
Co. 255 Minn. 19 , 95 N. W. (2d) 497 ; Lovejoy v. Minneapolis-Moline Power Implement Co. 248 Minn. 319 , 79 N. W. (2d) 688 ; Hartmon v. National Heater Co. 240 Minn. 264 , 60 N. W. (2d) 804 .
Kellett v. Wasnie 112 N.W.2d 820 Minn. 1962
Kellett v. Wasnie 112 N.W.2d 820 Minn. 1962
Mr. Chief Justice Dell said ( 248 Minn. 131 , 78 N. W. [2d] 349): “* * * Moreover while testimony relating to the settlement was not admissible as evidence of an admission of liability by [defendant] Gottwald, it was relevant and was properly admitted for the limited purpose of explaining the circumstances under which the statement was given.” In Lovejoy v. Minneapolis-Moline Power Implement Co. 248 Minn. 319 , 79 N. W. (2d) 688 , we held that it was reversible error to exclude explanatory testi
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
Co. 248 Minn. 319 , 79 N. W. (2d) 688 ; Hofstedt v. International Harvester Co. 256 Minn. 453 , 98 N. W. (2d) 808 .
Hofstedt v. International Harvester Co. 98 N.W.2d 808 Minn. 1959
Hofstedt v. International Harvester Co. 98 N.W.2d 808 Minn. 1959
Co. 248 Minn. 319 , 79 N. W. (2d) 688 .
Johnson v. West Fargo Manufacturing Co. 95 N.W.2d 497 Minn. 1959
Johnson v. West Fargo Manufacturing Co. 95 N.W.2d 497 Minn. 1959
Co. 248 Minn. 319, 325 , 79 N. W. (2d) 688, 693 , we said that a manufacturer of a chattel may become liable: “* * * if he knows or should know that the chattel is apt to cause bodily harm if not used in a specific manner [for a purpose for which it was intended] if he fails to furnish adequate warning as to the dangers inherent in its

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by