DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Explore

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Manion v. Tweedy, 100 N.W.2d 124.

76 citing documents.

  • 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.
  • Lauer v. Loecken 204 N.W.2d 817 Minn. 1973
  • Lauer v. Loecken 204 N.W.2d 817 Minn. 1973
    Manion v. Tweedy, 257 Minn. 59
  • Silver v. Redleaf 194 N.W.2d 271 Minn. 1972
  • Silver v. Redleaf 194 N.W.2d 271 Minn. 1972
    Yates v. Gamble, 198 Minn. 7, 12 , Berkholz v. Benepe, 153 Minn. 335, 337 , Moeller v. Hauser, 237 Minn. 368, 376 , Manion v. Tweedy, 257 Minn. 59, 70 , Hoffman v. Naslund, 274 Minn. 521, 531 , Swanson v. Chatterton, 281 Minn. 129, 134
  • Christy v. Saliterman 179 N.W.2d 288 Minn. 1970
  • Christy v. Saliterman 179 N.W.2d 288 Minn. 1970
    The standard of conduct required to be observed by a physician in the treatment of a patient is expressed in Manion v. Tweedy, 257 Minn. 59, 65 , 100 N. W. (2d) 124, 129 , as follows: *165 “* * * A physician is not an insurer of a cure or a good result of his treatment or operation.
  • 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, also, Manion v. Tweedy, 257 Minn. 59, 64 , 100 N. W. (2d) 124, 128 .
  • 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
    Manion v. Tweedy, *276 257 Minn. 59 , 100 N. W. (2d) 124 .
  • Swanson Ex Rel. Swanson v. Chatterton 160 N.W.2d 662 Minn. 1968
  • Swanson Ex Rel. Swanson v. Chatterton 160 N.W.2d 662 Minn. 1968
    and the result would not have followed in the absence of a breach of duty, the establishment of which did not involve any scientific knowledge.” 3 Fritz v. Parke Davis & Co. 277 Minn. 210 , 152 N. W. (2d) 129 ; Hoffman v. Naslund, 274 Minn. 521 , 144 N. W. (2d) 580 ; Schulz v. Feigal, 273 Minn. 470 , 142 N. W. (2d) 84 ; Miller v. Raaen, 273 Minn. 109 , 139 N. W. (2d) 877 ; Manion v. Tweedy, 257 Minn. 59 , 100 N. W. (2d) 124 ; Yates v. Gamble, 198 Minn. 7 , .
  • Fritz v. Parke Davis and Company 152 N.W.2d 129 Minn. 1967
  • Fritz v. Parke Davis and Company 152 N.W.2d 129 Minn. 1967
    3 Manion v. Tweedy, 257 Minn. 59 , 100 N. W. (2d) 124 .
  • Sauke v. Bird 125 N.W.2d 421 Minn. 1963
  • Sauke v. Bird 125 N.W.2d 421 Minn. 1963
    2 Manion v. Tweedy, 257 Minn. 59, 64 , 100 N. W. (2d) 124, 128 ; State v. Wilson, 238 Minn. 447, 452 , 57 N. W. (2d) 412, 415 ; Carter v. Duluth Yellow Cab Co. 170 Minn. 250, 253 , ; Barnes v. Northwest Airlines, Inc. 233 Minn. 410, 420 , 47 N. W. (2d) 180, 187 ; Minnesota Jury Instruction Guides, Instruction 29.
  • Newcomb v. Meiss 116 N.W.2d 593 Minn. 1962
  • Newcomb v. Meiss 116 N.W.2d 593 Minn. 1962
    The damages for injuries must have emanated from the second contact with the car and not because of the assault and battery.” In Manion v. Tweedy, 257 Minn. 59, 64 , 100 N. W. (2d) 124, 128 , we reviewed the rules governing the sufficiency of instructions and cited Cameron v. Evans, 241 Minn. 200, 208 , 62 N. W. (2d) 793, 798 , where we said: *324 “* * * the charge of the trial court must be viewed in its entirety and from a practical and common-sense point of view.
  • 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.
  • Walker v. Ruvelson 102 N.W.2d 19 Minn. 1960
  • Walker v. Ruvelson 102 N.W.2d 19 Minn. 1960
    Manion v. Tweedy, 257 Minn. 59 , 100 N. W. (2d) 124 .
  • 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
    veyor Co. 252 Minn. 135, 141 , 89 N. W. (2d) 179, 184 , this court stated: “* * * a party is entitled to an instruction based upon his theory of the case if there is evidence to support it; and if the requested instruction is not entirely proper, it is the duty of the court to correct it.” While the rule in Hagen v. Snow, supra, is subject to some qualifications, as discussed in Manion v. Tweedy, 257 Minn. 59 , 100 N. W. (2d) 124 , the rule is applicable to this case.