DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Schwartz v. Minneapolis Suburban Bus Co., 104 N.W.2d 301.

229 citing documents.

  • Baker v. Amtrak National Railroad Passenger 588 N.W.2d 749 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
    In Schwartz v. Minneapolis Suburban Bus Co., 258 Minn. 325, 328 , the supreme court established a method for inquiring into allegations of juror misconduct.
  • Wilson v. State 582 N.W.2d 882 Minn. 1998
  • Wilson v. State 582 N.W.2d 882 Minn. 1998
  • State v. Church 577 N.W.2d 715 Minn. 1998
  • State v. Church 577 N.W.2d 715 Minn. 1998
    See Schwartz v. Minneapolis Suburban Bus Co., 258 Minn. 325
  • State v. Wilson 535 N.W.2d 597 Minn. 1995
  • State v. Wilson 535 N.W.2d 597 Minn. 1995
  • State v. Kelley 517 N.W.2d 905 Minn. 1994
  • State v. Kelley 517 N.W.2d 905 Minn. 1994
    Schwartz v. Minneapolis Suburban Bus Company, 258 Minn. 325, 328
  • State v. Starkey 516 N.W.2d 918 Minn. 1994
  • State v. Starkey 516 N.W.2d 918 Minn. 1994
    In Schwartz v. Minneapolis Suburban Bus Co., 258 Minn. 325, this court outlined the proper procedure to use to impeach a verdict and Minn.R.Crim.P.
  • State v. Starkey 507 N.W.2d 8 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
  • State v. Starkey 507 N.W.2d 8 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
    See Schwartz v. Minneapolis Suburban Bus Co., 258 Minn. 325 , pet.
  • State v. Landro 504 N.W.2d 741 Minn. 1993
  • State v. Landro 504 N.W.2d 741 Minn. 1993
    We mandated this practice in Schwartz v. Minneapolis Suburban Bus Co., 258 Minn. 325
  • State v. Bauer 471 N.W.2d 363 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
  • State v. Bauer 471 N.W.2d 363 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
    Pursuant to Schwartz v. Minneapolis Suburban Bus Co., 258 Minn. 325, 328
  • ERICKSON BY ERICKSON v. Hammermeister 458 N.W.2d 172 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
  • ERICKSON BY ERICKSON v. Hammermeister 458 N.W.2d 172 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
    See Schwartz v. Minneapolis Suburban Bus Co., 258 Minn. 325, 328
  • State v. Crandall 452 N.W.2d 708 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
  • State v. Crandall 452 N.W.2d 708 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
    -63 (Minn.1977); Schwartz v. Minneapolis Suburban Bus Company, 258 Minn. 325, 328
  • State v. Hicks 432 N.W.2d 487 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
  • State v. Hicks 432 N.W.2d 487 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
    Appellant claims that the trial court erred by denying a post-trial hearing pursuant to Schwartz v. Minneapolis Suburban Bus Co., 258 Minn. 325
  • State v. Butzin 404 N.W.2d 819 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
  • State v. Butzin 404 N.W.2d 819 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
    Schwartz v. Minneapolis Suburban Bus Co., 258 Minn. 325
  • Marriage of Kerkhoff v. Kerkhoff 400 N.W.2d 752 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
  • Marriage of Kerkhoff v. Kerkhoff 400 N.W.2d 752 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
    In Schwartz v. Minneapolis Suburban Bus Co., 258 Minn. 325 , we stated what we thought was the better practice when that happens.
  • State v. Benedict 397 N.W.2d 337 Minn. 1986
  • State v. Benedict 397 N.W.2d 337 Minn. 1986
    Suburban Bus Co., 258 Minn. 325, 328 , we outlined procedures to be followed when a party seeks to impeach a verdict.
  • State v. McBroom 394 N.W.2d 806 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
  • State v. McBroom 394 N.W.2d 806 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
    Schwartz v. Minneapolis Suburban Bus Co., 258 Minn. 325
  • State v. Benedict 393 N.W.2d 36 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
  • State v. Benedict 393 N.W.2d 36 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
    ANALYSIS In Schwartz v. Minneapolis Suburban Bus Co., 258 Minn. 325 , , (1960) the Minnesota Supreme Court established a procedure to ensure a prejudice-free jury, and thus a fair trial, without the harassment of jurors subsequent to a verdict.
  • Miley v. Grabill 392 N.W.2d 52 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
  • Miley v. Grabill 392 N.W.2d 52 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
    See Schwartz v. Minneapolis Suburban Bus Co., 258 Minn. 325, 328
  • Tews v. Husqvarna, Inc. 390 N.W.2d 363 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
  • Tews v. Husqvarna, Inc. 390 N.W.2d 363 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
    Appellant, however, did not request a hearing under Schwartz v. Minneapolis Suburban Bus Co., 258 Minn. 325 , to ascertain whether the jury’s alleged misconduct had a prejudicial effect on the outcome of the case.
  • Benson v. Rostad 384 N.W.2d 190 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
  • Benson v. Rostad 384 N.W.2d 190 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
    At Rostad’s request, the court scheduled a Schwartz hearing, pursuant to Schwartz v. Minneapolis Suburban Bus Co., 258 Minn. 325 , see Stayberg v. Henderson, 277 Minn. 16 , (party requesting a new *196 trial for jury misconduct should have an opportunity to be heard).
  • Arney v. Helbig 383 N.W.2d 4 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
  • State v. Fitzgerald 382 N.W.2d 892 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
  • Arney v. Helbig 383 N.W.2d 4 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
    See Zimmerman, ; Patterson v. Donahue, 291 Minn. 285 , Olberg v. Minneapolis Gas Co., 291 Minn. 334 , Schwartz v. Minneapolis Suburban Bus Co., 258 Minn. 325
  • State v. Fitzgerald 382 N.W.2d 892 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
    606(b); Schwartz v. Minneapolis Suburban Bus Co., 258 Minn. 325
  • State v. Banks 379 N.W.2d 168 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
  • Strauss v. Waseca Village Bowl 378 N.W.2d 131 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
  • Strauss v. Waseca Village Bowl 378 N.W.2d 131 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
    Schwartz v. Minneapolis Suburban Bus Co., 258 Minn. 325, 328
  • State v. Banks 379 N.W.2d 168 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
    See Schwartz v. Minneapolis Suburban Bus Co., 258 Minn. 325 , Minn.R.
  • State v. Anderson 379 N.W.2d 70 Minn. 1985
  • State v. Anderson 379 N.W.2d 70 Minn. 1985
    See Schwartz v. Minneapolis Suburban Bus Co., 258 Minn. 325
  • State v. Jurek 376 N.W.2d 233 Minn. Ct. App. 1985