DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Explore

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Hagen v. Snow, 69 N.W.2d 100.

36 citing documents.

  • Alholm v. Wilt 394 N.W.2d 488 Minn. 1986
  • Alholm v. Wilt 394 N.W.2d 488 Minn. 1986
    In so doing, he relies on Hagen v. Snow, 244 Minn. 101 , and Nubbe v. Hardy Continental Hotel System of Minnesota, 225 Minn. 496
  • Ouellette Ex Rel. Ouellette v. Subak 379 N.W.2d 125 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
  • Ouellette Ex Rel. Ouellette v. Subak 379 N.W.2d 125 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
    for rev. denied, (Minn. August 19, 1985), we found the failure to properly instruct the jury on the relevant law required a new trial, stating: In Hagen v. Snow, 244 Minn. 101 , the court said: [E]ven a request for an instruction which is not entirely perfect may in some situations impose upon the court the duty to give a more specific instruction on a particular issue, where it soundly appears that such an instruction is needful to enable the jury to intelligently det
  • Clark v. Miller 378 N.W.2d 838 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
  • Clark v. Miller 378 N.W.2d 838 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
    Hagen v. Snow, 244 Minn. 101
  • Kalsbeck v. Westview Clinic, P.A. 375 N.W.2d 861 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
  • Kalsbeck v. Westview Clinic, P.A. 375 N.W.2d 861 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
    at 367 ; Hagen v. Snow, 244 Minn. 101, 106
  • Chacos v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. 368 N.W.2d 343 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
  • Chacos v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. 368 N.W.2d 343 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
    In Hagen v. Snow, 244 Minn. 101 , the court said: [E]ven a request for an instruction which is not entirely perfect may in some situations impose upon the court the duty to give a more specific instruction on a particular issue, where it soundly appears that such an instruction is needful to enable the jury to intelligently det
  • Sandhofer v. Abbott-Northwestern Hospital 283 N.W.2d 362 Minn. 1979
  • Sandhofer v. Abbott-Northwestern Hospital 283 N.W.2d 362 Minn. 1979
    Hagen v. Snow, 244 Minn. 101
  • Lhotka v. Larson 238 N.W.2d 870 Minn. 1976
  • Lhotka v. Larson 238 N.W.2d 870 Minn. 1976
    Hagen v. Snow, 244 Minn. 101 , Luther v. Standard Conveyor Co. 252 Minn. 135 , Phillips v. G. N. Ry.
  • Ramfjord v. Sullivan 222 N.W.2d 541 Minn. 1974
  • Ramfjord v. Sullivan 222 N.W.2d 541 Minn. 1974
    th reasonable safety, and then only after giving a clearly audible warning by sounding the horn if any pedestrian may be affected by the movement or after giving an appropriate signal in the manner hereinafter provided in the event any other vehicle may be affected by the movement.” The two cases cited by plaintiff are relevant; however, per *244 haps more applicable is the case of Hagen v. Snow, 244 Minn. 101, 106 , which states: “It is well established that, ‘as against a mere general or abstr
  • Malik v. Johnson 219 N.W.2d 631 Minn. 1974
  • Malik v. Johnson 219 N.W.2d 631 Minn. 1974
    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.” Plaintiffs place principal reliance on Hagen v. Snow, 244 Minn. 101, 106 , which states: “* * * It is well established that, ‘as against a mere general or abstract charge, a party is entitled to a specific instruction on
  • Holweger v. Great Northern Railway Co. 130 N.W.2d 354 Minn. 1964
  • Holweger v. Great Northern Railway Co. 130 N.W.2d 354 Minn. 1964
    Co. 257 Minn, 195, 100 N. W. (2d) 765 ; Hagen v. Snow, 244 Minn. 101 , 69 N. W. (2d) 100 ; Jacobson v. Chicago & N. W. Ry.
  • Martinson v. Scherbel 129 N.W.2d 802 Minn. 1964
  • Martinson v. Scherbel 129 N.W.2d 802 Minn. 1964
    Co. 213 Minn. 106, 113 , 5 N. W. (2d) 492, 496 ; Hagen v. Snow, 244 Minn. 101 , 69 N. W. (2d) 100 ; Borris v. Cox, 245 Minn. 515 , 73 N. W. (2d) 372 ; Lynghaug v. Payte, 247 Minn. 186 , 76 N. W. (2d) 660 , 56 A. L. R. (2d) 1090.
  • Waldstein v. Amann 208 N.W.2d 215 Minn. 1961
  • Waldstein v. Amann 208 N.W.2d 215 Minn. 1961
    In .support of his contention that it is error to deny a litigant a requested specific instruction based on his theory of a particular issue where there is evidence to support such theory and where such an instruction would enable a jury to determine the issues of the case intelligently, defendant cites as controlling Hagen v. Snow, 244 Minn. 101 , 69 N. W. (2d) 100 ; Manion v. Tweedy, 257 Minn. 59 , 100 N. W. *516 (2d) 124; and Phillips v. G. N. Ry.
  • Phillips v. Great Northern Railway Co. 100 N.W.2d 765 Minn. 1960
  • Phillips v. Great Northern Railway Co. 100 N.W.2d 765 Minn. 1960
    In Hagen v. Snow, 244 Minn. 101, 106 , 69 N. W. (2d) 100, 103 , we said: “It is well established that, ‘as against a mere general or abstract charge, a party is entitled to a specific instruction on his theory of the case, if there is evidence to support it and if a proper request for such an instruction is made.’ Chicago & N. W. Ry.
  • Manion v. Tweedy 100 N.W.2d 124 Minn. 1959
  • Manion v. Tweedy 100 N.W.2d 124 Minn. 1959
    It is plaintiffs claim that under Hagen v. Snow, 244 Minn. 101 , 69 N. W. (2d) 100 , he was entitled to a specific instruction on his theory of the case as against a general or abstract instruction.
  • Floen v. Sund 96 N.W.2d 563 Minn. 1959
  • Floen v. Sund 96 N.W.2d 563 Minn. 1959
    3 Luther v. Standard Conveyor Co. 252 Minn. 135 , 89 N. W. (2d) 179 ; Hagen v. Snow, 244 Minn. 101 , 69 N. W. (2d) 100 ; Chicago & N. W. Ry.
  • Luther v. Standard Conveyor Co. 89 N.W.2d 179 Minn. 1958
  • Luther v. Standard Conveyor Co. 89 N.W.2d 179 Minn. 1958
    7 Hagen v. Snow, 244 Minn. 101 , 69 N. W. (2d) 100 ; Chicago & N. W. Ry.
  • 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
    Hagen v. Snow, 244 Minn. 101 , 69 N. W. (2d) 100 .
  • Markle v. Haase 73 N.W.2d 362 Minn. 1955
  • Markle v. Haase 73 N.W.2d 362 Minn. 1955
    6 See, Hagen v. Snow, 244 Minn. 101, 106 , 69 N. W. (2d) 100, 103 ; Zurko v. Gilquist, 241 Minn. 1, 5 , 62 N. W. (2d) 351, 354 .