Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Lehman v. Hansord Pontiac Co. Inc., 74 N.W.2d 305.

78 citing documents.

Jerome E. Johnson, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2026
For example, the plaintiff proved that the defendant committed fraud by misrepresenting that a vehicle was a 1951 model (when it actually was a 1950 model), but the district court found that the plaintiff (like Johnson) failed to prove a difference in market value and, thus, did not award damages.
In re the Marriage of: Minn. Ct. App. 2026
We will sustain the fact-finder’s property valuation “if it falls within the limits of credible estimates made by competent witnesses even if it does not coincide exactly with the estimate of any one of them.” ; d 305, 310 (Minn. 1955) (“It is, however, the rule in this state that a [district] court is not bound by the opinion of any witness concerning values and that its findings will ordinarily be sustained if within the limits of the evidence as to values.”).
Tescil Romalis Mason-Kimmons v. State of Minnesota Minn. 2025
Tescil Romalis Mason-Kimmons v. State of Minnesota Minn. 2025
(“It is not the province of this court to make or amend findings of fact .
In re the Marriage of: Minn. Ct. App. 2025
(noting that the owner of property is “presumptively acquainted with its value” and may generally testify as to its value without any particular foundation being laid); -10 (Minn. 1955) (stating that “if there is an apparent lack of knowledge on the part of the owner as to value of his property, the same goes to the weight of the testimony given but not to the competency of that 12 testimony”).
Anshuman Bhatia, et al., Appellants, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
Property is the cost [appellants] paid for it minus the cost necessary to repair it.” They argue that to hold otherwise would require homeowners to obtain expert testimony to show a diminution in value, which would contradict the rule that an “owner of property either real or personal is presumptively acquainted with its value and may testify as to its value.” Lehman v. Hansord Pontiac Co.
Severin M. Chmielewski, et al., Respondents, Minn. Ct. App. 2024
v. Zweigbaum, (“In this state the owner of property .
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
is presumptively acquainted with its value and may testify as to its value.” Lehman v. Hansord Pontiac Co.
Michael Gavigan, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
is presumptively acquainted with its value and may testify as to its value.”
Timothy Boldt, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
attempt to recover damages in material excess of the market value of the house before its destruction.” In denying Mike’s Electric’s motion to exclude Boldt from testifying, the district court reasoned that, in Minnesota, the owner of both real and personal property is presumed to be acquainted with its value and may therefore testify as to its value, citing Lehman v. Hansord Pontiac Co., 246 Minn. 1, 6
TCI Business Capital, Inc. v. Five Star American Die Casting, LLC, Brian T. Flynn 890 N.W.2d 423 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
TCI Business Capital, Inc. v. Five Star American Die Casting, LLC, Brian T. Flynn 890 N.W.2d 423 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
See Lehman v. Hansord Pontiac Co., 246 Minn. 1, 10-11 , -12 (1955); Rosenquist v. Baker, 227 Minn. 217, 224
Roxanne J. Soderholm v. Olivia Forar Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Roxanne J. Soderholm v. Olivia Forar Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Lehman v. Hansord Pontiac Co., 246 Minn. 1, 6-7, -10 (1955) (stating that an owner familiar with the value of goods may testify as to its value).
Posey v. Fossen 707 N.W.2d 712 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
Posey v. Fossen 707 N.W.2d 712 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
See, e.g., Lehman v. Hansord Pontiac Co., 246 Minn. 1, 12 , Bachovchin, d at 290-91 .
Rainforest Cafe, Inc. v. State Investment Board 677 N.W.2d 443 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
Rainforest Cafe, Inc. v. State Investment Board 677 N.W.2d 443 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
(citing Lehman v. Hansord Pontiac Co., 246 Minn. 1, 7 , ).
Bachovchin v. Stingley 504 N.W.2d 288 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
Bachovchin v. Stingley 504 N.W.2d 288 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
Lehman v. Hansord Pontiac Co., 246 Minn. 1, 12
McNeill & Associates, Inc. v. ITT Life Insurance Corp. 446 N.W.2d 181 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
McNeill & Associates, Inc. v. ITT Life Insurance Corp. 446 N.W.2d 181 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Lehman v. Hansord Pontiac Co., 246 Minn. 1, 6
State v. Clipper 429 N.W.2d 698 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
State v. Clipper 429 N.W.2d 698 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
for rev. denied (Minn. July 22, 1987) (citing Lehman v. Hansord Pontiac Co., 246 Minn. 1, 6 , ); Carlson Equipment Co. v. International Harvester Co., 710 F.2d 481, 484 (8th Cir.1983).
Marriage of Bury v. Bury 416 N.W.2d 133 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Davis v. Johnson 415 N.W.2d 755 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Davis v. Johnson 415 N.W.2d 755 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Lehman v. Hansord Pontiac Co., 246 Minn. 1, 5
Marriage of Bury v. Bury 416 N.W.2d 133 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
(quoting Lehman v. Hansord Pontiac Co., 246 Minn. 1, 6 , ).
Marriage of Thomas v. Thomas 407 N.W.2d 124 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Marriage of Thomas v. Thomas 407 N.W.2d 124 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Lehman v. Hansord Pontiac Co., 246 Minn. 1, 7
State v. Anderson 405 N.W.2d 527 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
State v. Anderson 405 N.W.2d 527 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Lehman v. Hansord Pontiac Co., 246 Minn. 1, 6
Marriage of Johnson v. Johnson 392 N.W.2d 922 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Marriage of Johnson v. Johnson 392 N.W.2d 922 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Lehman v. Hansord Pontiac Co., Inc., 246 Minn. 1
Marriage of Ferguson v. Ferguson 357 N.W.2d 104 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Marriage of Ferguson v. Ferguson 357 N.W.2d 104 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Lehman v. Hansord Pontiac Co., Inc., 246 Minn. 1, 6
Raach v. Haverly 269 N.W.2d 877 Minn. 1978
Raach v. Haverly 269 N.W.2d 877 Minn. 1978
Lehman v. Hansord Pontiac Co., 246 Minn. 1 , Marion v. Miller, 237 Minn. 306 , Nelson v. Gjestrum, 118 Minn. 284 , 136 N.W.
Lewis v. Citizens Agency of Madelia, Inc. 235 N.W.2d 831 Minn. 1975
Lewis v. Citizens Agency of Madelia, Inc. 235 N.W.2d 831 Minn. 1975
Strouth v. Wilkison, 302 Minn. 297 , Weise v. Red Owl Stores, Inc. 286 Minn. 199 , Tysk v. Griggs, 253 Minn. 86 , Lehman v. Hansord Pontiac Co. Inc. 246 Minn. 1
Rathbun v. WT Grant Company 219 N.W.2d 641 Minn. 1974
Rathbun v. WT Grant Company 219 N.W.2d 641 Minn. 1974
Lehman v. Hansord Pontiac Co. Inc. 246 Minn. 1
Kost v. Peterson 193 N.W.2d 291 Minn. 1971
Kost v. Peterson 193 N.W.2d 291 Minn. 1971
(3 ed.) § 3818; Lehman v. Hansord Pontiac Co. Inc. 246 Minn. 1 , Hanson v. Ford Motor Co. 278 F. 2d 586 (8 Cir. 1960).
State v. Fridley Recreation & Service Company 179 N.W.2d 172 Minn. 1970
State v. Fridley Recreation & Service Company 179 N.W.2d 172 Minn. 1970
See, Lehman v. Hansord Pontiac Co. Inc. 246 Minn. 1 , 74 N. W. (2d) 305 .
Weise v. Red Owl Stores, Inc. 175 N.W.2d 184 Minn. 1970
Weise v. Red Owl Stores, Inc. 175 N.W.2d 184 Minn. 1970
Lehman v. Hansord Pontiac Co. Inc. 246 Minn. 1 , 74 N. W. (2d) 305 .
Moosbrugger v. McGraw-Edison Company 170 N.W.2d 72 Minn. 1969
Moosbrugger v. McGraw-Edison Company 170 N.W.2d 72 Minn. 1969
See, Herbst v. Suilman, 259 Minn. 292, 293 , 107 *158 N. W. (2d) 45, 46; Lehman v. Hansord Pontiac Co. Inc. 246 Minn. 1 , 74 N. W. (2d) 305 .