DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Explore

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Cameron v. Evans, 62 N.W.2d 793.

143 citing documents.

  • Kalpin v. Helgeson 254 N.W.2d 378 Minn. 1977
    Adrian v. Edstrom, 304 Minn. 52 , Cameron v. Evans, 241 Minn. 200 , Bisbee v. Ruppert, 306 Minn. 39
  • Lhotka v. Larson 238 N.W.2d 870 Minn. 1976
  • Lhotka v. Larson 238 N.W.2d 870 Minn. 1976
    Cameron v. Evans, 241 Minn. 200 , Manion v. Tweedy, 257 Minn. 59
  • Grothe Ex Rel. Grothe v. Shaffer 232 N.W.2d 227 Minn. 1975
  • Grothe Ex Rel. Grothe v. Shaffer 232 N.W.2d 227 Minn. 1975
    Cameron v. Evans, 241 Minn. 200
  • Adrian v. Edstrom 229 N.W.2d 161 Minn. 1975
  • Adrian v. Edstrom 229 N.W.2d 161 Minn. 1975
    Fifer v. Nelson, supra; Young v. Hansen, 296 Minn. 430 , Cameron v. Evans, 241 Minn. 200
  • Sandt v. Hylen 224 N.W.2d 342 Minn. 1974
  • Sandt v. Hylen 224 N.W.2d 342 Minn. 1974
    Cameron v. Evans, 241 Minn. 200
  • Gleeman v. Oren Triplett 222 N.W.2d 787 Minn. 1974
  • Gleeman v. Oren Triplett 222 N.W.2d 787 Minn. 1974
    Cameron v. Evans, 241 Minn. 200
  • Ramfjord v. Sullivan 222 N.W.2d 541 Minn. 1974
  • Ramfjord v. Sullivan 222 N.W.2d 541 Minn. 1974
    Thus, the following language from Cameron v. Evans, 241 Minn. 200, 208 , is pertinent: “* * * All that is required is that the charge as a whole convey to the jury a clear and correct understanding of the law.
  • Malik v. Johnson 219 N.W.2d 631 Minn. 1974
  • Malik v. Johnson 219 N.W.2d 631 Minn. 1974
    The general rule regarding the sufficiency of jury instructions is stated in Cameron v. Evans, 241 Minn. 200, 208 , : “* * * All that is required is that the charge as a whole convey to the jury a clear and correct understanding of the law.
  • Smith v. KAHLER CORPORATION, INC. 211 N.W.2d 146 Minn. 1973
  • Smith v. KAHLER CORPORATION, INC. 211 N.W.2d 146 Minn. 1973
    This court in Cameron v. Evans, 241 Minn. 200, 208 , and again in Manion v. Tweedy, 257 Minn. 59, 64 , stated: “* * * [T]he charge of the trial court must be viewed in its entirety and from a practical and commonsense point of view.
  • Moteberg v. Johnson 210 N.W.2d 27 Minn. 1973
  • Moteberg v. Johnson 210 N.W.2d 27 Minn. 1973
    DeWitt v. Schuhbauer, supra; Young v. Hansen, 296 Minn. 430 , Cameron v. Evans, 241 Minn. 200
  • Young Ex Rel. Young v. Hansen 209 N.W.2d 392 Minn. 1973
  • Young Ex Rel. Young v. Hansen 209 N.W.2d 392 Minn. 1973
    Our court stated in Cameron v. Evans, 241 Minn. 200, 209 , : “* * * Whether a verdict should be set aside as excessive rests largely in the discretion of the trial court.
  • Fifer v. Nelson 204 N.W.2d 422 Minn. 1973
  • Fifer v. Nelson 204 N.W.2d 422 Minn. 1973
    Cameron v. Evans, 241 Minn. 200
  • Hiedeman v. Hiedeman 187 N.W.2d 119 Minn. 1971
  • Hiedeman v. Hiedeman 187 N.W.2d 119 Minn. 1971
    We dispose of this claim by observing that when the charge is viewed in its entirety from a practical and eommonsense point of view, in light of the record as a whole, as we are required to do (Cameron v. Evans, 241 Minn. 200 , 62 N. W. [2d] 793), we are unable to find substance to support the claim of prejudicial error.
  • Schmidt v. Beninga 173 N.W.2d 401 Minn. 1970
  • Schmidt v. Beninga 173 N.W.2d 401 Minn. 1970
    Cameron v. Evans, 241 Minn. 200 , 62 N. W. (2d) 793 ; Zuber v. N. P. Ry.
  • Moosbrugger v. McGraw-Edison Company 170 N.W.2d 72 Minn. 1969
  • Moosbrugger v. McGraw-Edison Company 170 N.W.2d 72 Minn. 1969
    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.” Cameron v. Evans, 241 Minn. 200, 208 , 62 N. W. (2d) 793, 798 .
  • Peterson v. MINNEAPOLIS STAR AND TRIBUNE COMPANY 164 N.W.2d 621 Minn. 1969
  • Peterson v. MINNEAPOLIS STAR AND TRIBUNE COMPANY 164 N.W.2d 621 Minn. 1969
    But this contention ignores the traditional and unique function of the jury dearly recognized by this court in Cameron v. Evans, 241 Minn. 200, 204 , 62 N. W. (2d) 793 , 796: “* * * It is for the jury, not the court, to determine the weight to be given to the testimony of a witness and to decide what the testimony of the witness proves.” We think the instruction given and the verdict returned in this action are in conformity with applicable Minnesota law rel
  • Kramer v. Kramer 162 N.W.2d 708 Minn. 1968
  • Kramer v. Kramer 162 N.W.2d 708 Minn. 1968
    We said in Cameron v. Evans, 241 Minn. 200, 204 , 62 N. W. (2d) 793 , 796: “* * * It is not uncommon for admissions, contradictions, and inconsistencies to appear in the testimony of witnesses during cross-examination even though the witnesses are entirely honest.
  • Brown v. Kaminski 152 N.W.2d 79 Minn. 1967
  • Brown v. Kaminski 152 N.W.2d 79 Minn. 1967
    Schroht v. Voll, 245 Minn. 114 , 71 N. W. (2d) 843 ; Cameron v. Evans, 241 Minn. 200 , 62 N. W. (2d) 793 .
  • Colgan v. Raymond 146 N.W.2d 530 Minn. 1966
  • Colgan v. Raymond 146 N.W.2d 530 Minn. 1966
    In Cameron v. Evans, 241 Minn. 200 , 62 N. W. (2d) 793 , we pointed out that large verdicts should be closely scrutinized where the damages are based upon subjective symptoms only, but went on to say that that issue rests largely in the discretion of the trial court whose action will not be reversed on appeal unless it clearly appears that that discret
  • Vanderlinde v. Wehle 144 N.W.2d 547 Minn. 1966
  • Vanderlinde v. Wehle 144 N.W.2d 547 Minn. 1966
    Brannan v. Shertzer, 242 Minn. 277 , 64 N. W. (2d) 755 ; Cameron v. Evans, 241 Minn. 200 , 62 N. W. (2d) 793 ; Hallada v. G. N. Ry.
  • Swedeen v. Swedeen 134 N.W.2d 871 Minn. 1965
  • Swedeen v. Swedeen 134 N.W.2d 871 Minn. 1965
    Cameron v. Evans, 241 Minn. 200 , 62 N. W. (2d) 793 ; Zuber v. N. P. Ry.
  • Rauk v. Vold 127 N.W.2d 687 Minn. 1964
  • Rauk v. Vold 127 N.W.2d 687 Minn. 1964
    State v. Anderson, 261 Minn. 431 , 113 N. W. (2d) 4 ; Lott v. Davidson, 261 Minn. 130 , 109 N. W. (2d) 336 ; Cameron v. Evans, 241 Minn. 200 , 62 N. W. (2d) 793 ; Zurko v. Gilquist, 241 Minn. 1 , 62 N. W. (2d) 351 ; Lieberman v. Korsh, 264 Minn. 234 , 119 N. W. (2d) 180 ; Danielson v. St.
  • McCormick v. Malecha 122 N.W.2d 446 Minn. 1963
  • McCormick v. Malecha 122 N.W.2d 446 Minn. 1963
    Cameron v. Evans, 241 Minn. 200 , 62 N. W. (2d) 793 ; Larson v. Degner, 248 Minn. 59 , 78 N. W. (2d) 333 .
  • Tandeski v. Barnard 121 N.W.2d 708 Minn. 1963
  • Tandeski v. Barnard 121 N.W.2d 708 Minn. 1963
    Cameron v. Evans, 241 Minn. 200 , 62 N. W. (2d) 793 .
  • Mester v. Fritze 121 N.W.2d 335 Minn. 1963
  • Mester v. Fritze 121 N.W.2d 335 Minn. 1963
    Larson v. Degner, 248 Minn. 59, 67 , 78 N. W. (2d) 333, 339 ; Cameron v. Evans, 241 Minn. 200 , 62 N. W. (2d) 793 .
  • Newcomb v. Meiss 116 N.W.2d 593 Minn. 1962