DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Beebe v. Kleidon, 65 N.W.2d 614.

31 citing documents.

  • Progressive Direct Insurance Company, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
    “Implied consent, if it exists at all, must be drawn from all the facts and circumstances existing in the case and is usually a question for the [fact-finder].” Carlson, d at 752
  • Whaley v. Anderson 458 N.W.2d 155 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
  • Whaley v. Anderson 458 N.W.2d 155 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
    (the strongest evidence of implied permission would be a series of prior uses without express permission and yet without objection by the owner); Beebe v. Kleidon, 242 Minn. 521, 524-25 , (implied consent found where there was evidence that grandson had his own set of keys for the car and had driven the car previously); Stewart v. Anderson, 310 Minn. 495, 498 , (implied consent found where family friend had previously used vehicle with
  • Ruppert v. Yaeger 414 N.W.2d 419 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
  • Ruppert v. Yaeger 414 N.W.2d 419 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
    19, 1985); see also Beebe v. Kleidon, 242 Minn. 521, 527-28 , (argument which arouses prejudice by bringing in irrelevant facts concerning financial standing will not be condoned); Donohue v. Acme Heating Sheet Metal and Roofing Co., 214 Minn. 424, 425-26 , (the existence of insurance is immaterial for purposes of defe
  • Safeco Insurance Companies v. Diaz 385 N.W.2d 845 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
  • Safeco Insurance Companies v. Diaz 385 N.W.2d 845 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
    In Beebe v. Kleidon, 242 Minn. 521 , a 15 year old said he found the keys to his grandfather’s car *848 hidden under a mattress.
  • Hase v. American Guarantee & Liability Insurance 251 N.W.2d 638 Minn. 1977
  • Hase v. American Guarantee & Liability Insurance 251 N.W.2d 638 Minn. 1977
    In Beebe v. Kleidon, 242 Minn. 521, 526 , we defined the elements of the res gestae or excited utterance exception: “* * * To come within this exception to the hearsay rule, the declaration must follow a startling occasion; it must be made before there is time for the declarant to reflect upon the impacts of the statement
  • Stewart v. Anderson 246 N.W.2d 576 Minn. 1976
  • Stewart v. Anderson 246 N.W.2d 576 Minn. 1976
    In Beebe v. Kleidon, 242 Minn. 521 , we upheld a jury’s finding that a 15~year:old grandchild of the defendant automobile owner used the defendant’s automobile with the defendant’s implied consent.
  • Anderson v. HEDGES MOTOR COMPANY 164 N.W.2d 364 Minn. 1969
  • Anderson v. HEDGES MOTOR COMPANY 164 N.W.2d 364 Minn. 1969
    Beebe v. Kleidon, 242 Minn. 521 , 65 N. W. (2d) 614 .
  • Boland v. Morrill 132 N.W.2d 711 Minn. 1965
  • Boland v. Morrill 132 N.W.2d 711 Minn. 1965
    Boutang v. Twin City Motor Bus Co. 248 Minn. 240 , 80 N. W. (2d) 30 ; Beebe v. Kleidon, 242 Minn. 521 , 65 N. W. (2d) 614 ; Willmar Gas Co. v. Duininck, 239 Minn. 173 , 58 N. W. (2d) 197 .
  • Johnson v. Sleizer 129 N.W.2d 761 Minn. 1964
  • Johnson v. Sleizer 129 N.W.2d 761 Minn. 1964
    Beebe v. Kleidon, 242 Minn. 521 , 65 N. W. (2d) 614 , is the only Minnesota case found in which reference has been made to whether the declarant must be deceased in order to admit his statements as declarations against interest.
  • Pautz v. American Insurance Co. 128 N.W.2d 731 Minn. 1964
  • Pautz v. American Insurance Co. 128 N.W.2d 731 Minn. 1964
    defendant’s counsel’s characterization of the plaintiff’s case as being groundless.” In Pelzer v. Lange, 254 Minn. 46, 54 , 93 N. W. (2d) 666, 672 , we stated: “* * * where a party fails to request corrective instructions before the jury retires, he may not later claim that the statements of opposing counsel in the closing argument constituted misconduct, justifying a new trial, Beebe v. Kleidon, 242 Minn. 521 , 65 N. W. (2d) 614 ; Jurgensen v. Schirmer Transp.
  • Hammersten v. Reiling 115 N.W.2d 259 Minn. 1962
  • Hammersten v. Reiling 115 N.W.2d 259 Minn. 1962
    Co. 247 Minn. 368 , 77 N. W. (2d) 433 , 58 A. L. R. (2d) 921; Beebe v. Kleidon, 242 Minn. 521 , 65 N. W. (2d) 614 ; Hardy v. Anderson, 241 Minn. 478 , 63 N. W. (2d) 814 ; State v. Becker, 231 Minn. 174 , 42 N. W. (2d) 704 ; Brecht v. Town of Bergen, 182 Minn. 603 , .
  • Meagher v. Kavli 97 N.W.2d 370 Minn. 1959
  • Meagher v. Kavli 97 N.W.2d 370 Minn. 1959
    9 Beebe v. Kleidon, 242 Minn. 521 , 65 N. W. (2d) 614 ; Hardy v. Anderson, 241 Minn. 478 , 63 N. W. (2d) 814 ; Willmar Gas Co. Inc. v. Duininck, 239 Minn. 173 , 58 N. W. (2d) 197 ; Randall v. Goodrich-Gamble Co. 244 Minn. 401 , 70 N. W. (2d) 261 ; Hallada v. G. N. Ry.
  • Pelzer v. Lange 93 N.W.2d 666 Minn. 1958
  • Pelzer v. Lange 93 N.W.2d 666 Minn. 1958
    *54 We have repeatedly held that where a party fails to request corrective instructions before the jury retires, he may not later claim that the statements of opposing counsel in the closing argument constituted misconduct, justifying a new trial, Beebe v. Kleidon, 242 Minn. 521 , 65 N. W. (2d) 614 ; Jurgensen v. Schirmer Transp.
  • Thelen v. Spilman 86 N.W.2d 700 Minn. 1957
  • Thelen v. Spilman 86 N.W.2d 700 Minn. 1957
    244 Minn. 81 , 69 N. W. (2d) 673 ; Beebe v. Kleidon, 242 Minn. 521 , 65 N. W. (2d) 614 .
  • Boutang v. Twin City Motor Bus Co. 80 N.W.2d 30 Minn. 1956
  • Boutang v. Twin City Motor Bus Co. 80 N.W.2d 30 Minn. 1956
    5 Beebe v. Kleidon, 242 Minn. 521 , 65 N. W. (2d) 614 ; Hardy v. Anderson, 241 Minn. 478 , 63 N. W. (2d) 814 ; Willmar Gas Co. Inc. v. Duininck, 239 Minn. 173 , 58 N. W. (2d) 197 ; Randall v. Goodrich-Gamble Co. 244 Minn. 401 , 70 N. W. (2d) 261 ; Hallada v. G. N. Ry.
  • Burns v. Kvernstoen 74 N.W.2d 398 Minn. 1955
  • Burns v. Kvernstoen 74 N.W.2d 398 Minn. 1955
    Willmar Gas Co. Inc. v. Duininck, 239 Minn. 173 , 58 N. W. (2d) 197 ; Beebe v. Kleidon, 242 Minn. 521 , 65 N. W. (2d) 614 .