Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Gebhard v. Niedzwiecki, 122 N.W.2d 110.

53 citing documents.

Carol Audrey Jones, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
See Gebhard v. Niedzwiecki , - 15 (Minn. 1963) (stating that discovery seeks to prevent unjust surprise by ascertaining all relevant facts before trial).
Town of Denmark, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
8 Although the Cordeses cite to cases where appellate courts affirmed the exclusion of nondisclosed factual evidence, Fritz v. Arnold Mfg.
In re the Marriage of: Brian D. Peterson v. Joyce Marie Deeb Minn. Ct. App. 2015
In re the Marriage of: Brian D. Peterson v. Joyce Marie Deeb Minn. Ct. App. 2015
evidence.” Gebhard v. Niedzwiecki, 265 Minn. 471, 476
In Re Petition for Disciplinary Action Against Czarnik 759 N.W.2d 217 Minn. 2009
In Re Petition for Disciplinary Action Against Czarnik 759 N.W.2d 217 Minn. 2009
” Gebhard v. Niedzwiecki, 265 Minn. 471, 476
Thorson v. Zollinger Dental, P.A. 728 N.W.2d 261 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
Thorson v. Zollinger Dental, P.A. 728 N.W.2d 261 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
Prior to the adoption of rule 26.05 in 1974, the supreme court in Gebhard v. Niedziviecki, 265 Minn. 471 , imposed a continuing obligation to supplement responses under Minn. R. Civ.
Matter of Trust Created by Hill 499 N.W.2d 475 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
Matter of Trust Created by Hill 499 N.W.2d 475 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
See Gebhard v. Niedzwiecki, 265 Minn. 471, 480
McCarthy Well Co. v. St. Peter Creamery, Inc. 410 N.W.2d 312 Minn. 1987
McCarthy Well Co. v. St. Peter Creamery, Inc. 410 N.W.2d 312 Minn. 1987
Gebhard v. Niedzwiecki, 265 Minn. 471, 478
Sparta Sportsfabrikk v. NorTur, Inc. 407 N.W.2d 128 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Sparta Sportsfabrikk v. NorTur, Inc. 407 N.W.2d 128 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Gebhard v. Niedzwiecki, 265 Minn. 471, 476
VanHercke v. Eastvold 405 N.W.2d 902 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
VanHercke v. Eastvold 405 N.W.2d 902 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Gebhard v. Niedzwiecki, 265 Minn. 471, 477
Bush v. Winter 402 N.W.2d 229 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Bush v. Winter 402 N.W.2d 229 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Gebhard v. Niedzwiecki, 265 Minn. 471, 476
State ex rel. Spannaus v. Heimer 393 N.W.2d 687 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
State ex rel. Spannaus v. Heimer 393 N.W.2d 687 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Quoting Gebhard v. Niedewiecki, 265 Minn. 471, 478 , Phelps states: The application of this rule should not require the disclosure of every bit of information discovered after the answers are served, but should require that any information which is of a substantial nature and which will render the answers theretofore served untruthful
McCarthy Well Co. v. St. Peter Creamery, Inc. 389 N.W.2d 514 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
McCarthy Well Co. v. St. Peter Creamery, Inc. 389 N.W.2d 514 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
See Gebhard v. Niedzwiecki, 265 Minn. 471, 477
Sandberg v. Commissioner of Revenue 383 N.W.2d 277 Minn. 1986
Sandberg v. Commissioner of Revenue 383 N.W.2d 277 Minn. 1986
See Fritz, 305 Minn. 190 , ; Gebhard v. Niedzwiecki, 265 Minn. 471 , Louisell, Discovery and PreTrial Under the Minnesota Rules, 36 Minn.L.Rev.
Higgins v. Lufi 353 N.W.2d 150 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Higgins v. Lufi 353 N.W.2d 150 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
at 217 , d at 557 , quoting Gebhard v. Niedzwiecki, 265 Minn. 471, 477 , -15 (1963).
Danielson v. Hanford 352 N.W.2d 758 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Danielson v. Hanford 352 N.W.2d 758 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Freeburg v. Lillydale Grand Central Corp., 284 Minn. 388 , citing Gebhard v. Niedzwiecki, 265 Minn. 471
Vaughn v. Love 347 N.W.2d 818 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Vaughn v. Love 347 N.W.2d 818 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Fritz v. Arnold Manufacturing Co., 305 Minn. 190 , Gebhard v. Niedzwiecki, 265 Minn. 471
Cotroneo v. Pilney 343 N.W.2d 645 Minn. 1984
Cotroneo v. Pilney 343 N.W.2d 645 Minn. 1984
Gebhard v. Niedzwiecki, 265 Minn. 471, 478
Phelps v. Blomberg Roseville Clinic 253 N.W.2d 390 Minn. 1977
Phelps v. Blomberg Roseville Clinic 253 N.W.2d 390 Minn. 1977
We stated in Gebhard v. Niedzwiecki, 265 Minn. 471, 478 , : “The application of this rule should not require the disclosure of every bit of information discovered after the answers are served, but should require that any information which is of a substantial nature and which will render the answers theretofore served untruthful, unreliable, o
Shymanski v. Nash 251 N.W.2d 854 Minn. 1977
Shymanski v. Nash 251 N.W.2d 854 Minn. 1977
Gebhard v. Niedzwiecki, 265 Minn. 471
Fritz v. Arnold Manufacturing Co. 232 N.W.2d 782 Minn. 1975
Krech v. Erdman 233 N.W.2d 555 Minn. 1975
Krech v. Erdman 233 N.W.2d 555 Minn. 1975
We held in Gebhard v. Niedzwiecki, 265 Minn. 471, 477 , : “* * * [W]here the after-acquired information is of a material nature or where it will render the answers originally given untruthful, unreliable, or inaccurate, the obligation to disclose such after-acquired information continues.
Fritz v. Arnold Manufacturing Co. 232 N.W.2d 782 Minn. 1975
Gebhard v. Niedzwiecki, 265 Minn. 471 , Lundin v. Stratmoen, 250 Minn. 555
Dorn v. Home Farmers Mutual Insurance Ass'n 220 N.W.2d 503 Minn. 1974
Distinguished Dorn v. Home Farmers Mutual Insurance Ass'n 220 N.W.2d 503 Minn. 1974
In support of this argument defend *419 ant places primary reliance on Gebhard v. Niedzwiecki, 265 Minn. 471
County of Hennepin v. Shasky 182 N.W.2d 431 Minn. 1970
County of Hennepin v. Shasky 182 N.W.2d 431 Minn. 1970
Gebhard v. Niedzwiecki, 265 Minn. 471 , 122 N. W. (2d) 110 .
Freeburg v. Lillydale Grand Central Corp. 170 N.W.2d 330 Minn. 1969
Freeburg v. Lillydale Grand Central Corp. 170 N.W.2d 330 Minn. 1969
Gebhard v. Niedzwiecki, 265 Minn. 471 , 122 N. W. (2d) 110 .
Carver v. Salt River Valley Water Users' Ass'n 456 P.2d 371 Ariz. 1969
Carver v. Salt River Valley Water Users' Ass'n 446 P.2d 492 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
Simpson v. Heiderich 419 P.2d 362 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1966
Sanchez v. Waldrup 136 N.W.2d 61 Minn. 1965

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by