Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Berg v. Ullevig, 70 N.W.2d 133.

37 citing documents.

Ruppert v. Milwaukee Mutual Insurance Co. 392 N.W.2d 550 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Ruppert v. Milwaukee Mutual Insurance Co. 392 N.W.2d 550 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Kenney , at 290, d at 673 , quoting Berg v. Ullevig, 244 Minn. 390, 398
Seeley Ex Rel. Seeley v. Sobczak 281 N.W.2d 368 Minn. 1979
Seeley Ex Rel. Seeley v. Sobczak 281 N.W.2d 368 Minn. 1979
See, Berg v. Ullevig, 244 Minn. 390, 399
Williamson v. Furch 229 N.W.2d 39 Minn. 1975
Williamson v. Furch 229 N.W.2d 39 Minn. 1975
Haavig v. Hidding, 298 Minn. 192 , Smith v. Rekucki, 287 Minn. 149 , Berg v. Ullevig, 244 Minn. 390
Haavig v. Hidding 214 N.W.2d 222 Minn. 1974
Haavig v. Hidding 214 N.W.2d 222 Minn. 1974
We have frequently held that “the question of whether a verdict is adequate is addressed in the first instance to the sound discretion of the trial court, and its action will not be reversed on appeal except for a clear abuse of discretion.” Smith v. Rekucki, 287 Minn. 149, 156 , Berg v. Ullevig, 244 Minn. 390 , Litman v. Walso, 211 Minn. 398 , Mohr v. Williams, 95 Minn. 261
Hestad v. Pennsylvania Life Insurance Company 204 N.W.2d 433 Minn. 1973
Hestad v. Pennsylvania Life Insurance Company 204 N.W.2d 433 Minn. 1973
Berg v. Ullevig, 244 Minn. 390
Smith v. Rekucki 177 N.W.2d 410 Minn. 1970
Smith v. Rekucki 177 N.W.2d 410 Minn. 1970
Mohr v. Williams, 95 Minn. 261 , , 1 L. R. A. (N. S.) *157 439; Litman v. Walso, 211 Minn. 398 , 1 N. W. (2d) 391 ; Berg v. Ullevig, 244 Minn. 390 , 70 N. W. (2d) 133 .
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.
State v. Mitchell 163 N.W.2d 310 Minn. 1968
State v. Mitchell 163 N.W.2d 310 Minn. 1968
Co. 70 Minn. 278 , ; State v. Potoniec, 117 Minn. 80 , ; Berg v. Ullevig, 244 Minn. 390 , 70 N. W. (2d) 133 ; Backman v. Fitch, 272 Minn. 143 , 137 N. W. (2d) 574 .
Backman v. Fitch 137 N.W.2d 574 Minn. 1965
Backman v. Fitch 137 N.W.2d 574 Minn. 1965
(3 ed.) § 7141; cf. Berg v. Ullevig, 244 Minn. 390 , 70 N. W. (2d) 133 ; Krueger v. Knutson, 261 Minn. 144 , 111 N. W. (2d) 526 .
Gardner v. Coca-Cola Bottling Co. of Minnesota, Inc. 127 N.W.2d 557 Minn. 1964
Gardner v. Coca-Cola Bottling Co. of Minnesota, Inc. 127 N.W.2d 557 Minn. 1964
Co. 239 Minn. 198 , 58 N. W. (2d) 614 ; Berg v. Ullevig, 244 Minn. 390 , 70 N. W. (2d) 133 .
Krueger v. Knutson 111 N.W.2d 526 Minn. 1961
Krueger v. Knutson 111 N.W.2d 526 Minn. 1961
In Berg v. Ullevig, 244 Minn. 390 , 70 N.. W. (2d) 133, plaintiff Ivan Berg had expended $269 for medical care.
State v. McCarthy 104 N.W.2d 673 Minn. 1960
State v. McCarthy 104 N.W.2d 673 Minn. 1960
In re Estate of Olson, 176 Minn. 360 , ; *32 Barnes v. Northwest Airlines, Inc. 233 Minn. 410 , 47 N. W. (2d) 180 ; Berg v. Ullevig, 244 Minn. 390 , 70 N. W. (2d) 133 ; Van House v. Canadian Northern Ry.
Seydel v. Reuber 94 N.W.2d 265 Minn. 1959
Seydel v. Reuber 94 N.W.2d 265 Minn. 1959
See, Bartl v. City of New Ulm, 245 Minn. 148 , 72 N. W. (2d) 303 ; Berg v. Ullevig, 244 Minn. 390 , 70 N. W. (2d) 133 ; Maas v. Midway Chevrolet Co. 219 Minn. 461 , 18 N. W. (2d) 233 , 158 A. L. R. 215; Litman v. Walso, 211 Minn. 398 , 1 N. W. (2d) 391 ; Krueger v. Henschke, supra; Flaugh v. Egan Chevrolet, Inc. supra; Wright v. Engelbert, 193 Minn. 509 , ; Leipert v. Honold, 39 Cal.
Erickson v. Strickler 90 N.W.2d 232 Minn. 1958
Erickson v. Strickler 90 N.W.2d 232 Minn. 1958
See, also, Berg v. Ullevig, 244 Minn. 390 , 70 N. W. (2d) 133 .
Peterson Ex Rel. Peterson v. Richfield Plaza, Inc. 89 N.W.2d 712 Minn. 1958
Followed Peterson Ex Rel. Peterson v. Richfield Plaza, Inc. 89 N.W.2d 712 Minn. 1958
The rule we have followed in the past is stated in Berg v. Ullevig, 244 Minn. 390, 398 , 70 N. W. (2d) 133, 138 , as follows: “* * * It is well settled in Minnesota that mere descriptive statements of a sick or injured person as to the symptoms and effects of his injury or malady are only admissible when they have been made to a medical attendant for the purpose of medical treatment.
Carmody v. Aho 86 N.W.2d 692 Minn. 1957
Genzel v. Halvorson 80 N.W.2d 854 Minn. 1957
Genzel v. Halvorson 80 N.W.2d 854 Minn. 1957
Berg v. Ullevig, 244 Minn. 390 , 70 N. W. (2d) 133 ; Greenberg v. Holfeltz, 244 Minn. 175 , 69 N. W. (2d) 369 ; Brannan v. Shertzer, 242 Minn. 277 , 64 N. W. (2d) 755 .
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
7 Woyak v. Konieske, supra; Berg v. Ullevig, 244 Minn. 390 , 70 N. W. (2d) 133 .
Kenney v. Chicago Great Western Railway Co. 71 N.W.2d 669 Minn. 1955
Kenney v. Chicago Great Western Railway Co. 71 N.W.2d 669 Minn. 1955
As we recently stated in Berg v. Ullevig, 244 Minn. 390, 398 , 70 N. W. (2d) 133 , 138: “* * * The test, of course, is not whether the trauma resulting from another’s negligence might, only in the realm of possibility, have been a factor in producing a certain result, but whether it was a factor or at least a probable factor in producing the claimed result.” In this case w