DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Carmody v. Aho, 86 N.W.2d 692.

38 citing documents.

  • Polacec v. Voigt 385 N.W.2d 867 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
  • Polacec v. Voigt 385 N.W.2d 867 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
    Carmody v. Aho, 251 Minn. 19, 26
  • State v. Schaffer 378 N.W.2d 115 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
  • State v. Schaffer 378 N.W.2d 115 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
    Appellant claims the evidence was inadmissible, citing Carmody v. Aho, 251 Minn. 19 , where the supreme court held the trial court committed reversible error to permit an expert hired by one side to opine as to the lane of traffic in which the collision occurred.
  • DeRemer v. Pacific Intermountain Express Co. 353 N.W.2d 694 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
  • DeRemer v. Pacific Intermountain Express Co. 353 N.W.2d 694 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
    Carmody v. Aho, 251 Minn. 19
  • State v. Dewey 272 N.W.2d 355 Minn. 1978
  • State v. Dewey 272 N.W.2d 355 Minn. 1978
    In arguing that the district court erred in denying the motion to suppress the proposed accident reconstruction testimony by the state trooper, who apparently is a trained expert, defendant relies upon Carmody v. Aho, 251 Minn. 19
  • Bigham v. J. C. Penney Co. 268 N.W.2d 892 Minn. 1978
  • Bigham v. J. C. Penney Co. 268 N.W.2d 892 Minn. 1978
    Moteberg v. Johnson, 297 Minn. 28 , McCormick v. Malecha, 266 Minn. 33 , Carmody v. Aho, 251 Minn. 19
  • State v. Matthews 221 N.W.2d 563 Minn. 1974
  • State v. Matthews 221 N.W.2d 563 Minn. 1974
    Co. 295 Minn. 306 , Carmody v. Aho, 251 Minn. 19
  • 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
    As stated in Carmody v. Aho, 251 Minn. 19, 24 , : “Where the opinion is not based on the application of any special skill, learning, or experience but is simply the judgment of *311 the expert based on facts or assumptions equally available to the jury and understandable by them, the opinion of such expert is not admissible.
  • Smith Ex Rel. Smith v. Lafortune 179 N.W.2d 136 Minn. 1970
  • Smith Ex Rel. Smith v. Lafortune 179 N.W.2d 136 Minn. 1970
    1 Beckman v. Schroeder, 224 Minn. 370 , 28 N. W. (2d) 629 ; Boutang v. Twin City Motor Bus Co. 248 Minn. 240, 251 , 80 N. W. (2d) 30, 39 ; Carmody v. Aho, 251 Minn. 19, 23 , 86 N. W. (2d) 692, 695 ; and Murphy v. Hennen, 264 Minn. 457, 464 , 119 N. W. (2d) 489, 493 .
  • Schoeb v. Cowles 156 N.W.2d 895 Minn. 1968
  • Schoeb v. Cowles 156 N.W.2d 895 Minn. 1968
    Murphy v. Hennen, 264 Minn. 457 , 119 N. W. (2d) 489 ; Carmody v. Aho, 251 Minn. 19 , 86 N. W. (2d) 692 .
  • Montagne v. Stenvold 148 N.W.2d 815 Minn. 1967
  • Montagne v. Stenvold 148 N.W.2d 815 Minn. 1967
    1 Murphy v. Hennen, 264 Minn. 457 , 119 N. W. (2d) 489 ; McNab v. Jeppesen, 258 Minn. 15 , 102 N. W. (2d) 709 ; Carmody v. Aho, 251 Minn. 19 , 86 N. W. (2d) 692 ; Beckman v. Schroeder, 224 Minn. 370 , 28 N. W. (2d) 629 .
  • Teslow v. Minneapolis-Honeywell Regulator Co. 141 N.W.2d 507 Minn. 1966
  • Teslow v. Minneapolis-Honeywell Regulator Co. 141 N.W.2d 507 Minn. 1966
    Woyak v. Konieske, 237 Minn. 213 , 54 N. W. (2d) 649 , 33 A. L. R. (2d) 1241; Carmody v. Aho, 251 Minn. 19 , 86 N. W. (2d) 692 .
  • Housing & Redevelopment Authority v. First Avenue Realty Company, Inc. 133 N.W.2d 645 Minn. 1965
  • Housing & Redevelopment Authority v. First Avenue Realty Company, Inc. 133 N.W.2d 645 Minn. 1965
    In Caimody v. Aho, 251 Minn. 19, 23 , 86 N. W. (2d) 692, 695 , we said: “* * * As a general rule, the preliminary question whether a witness has the necessary qualifications to testify as an expert is left to the sound discretion of the trial court.
  • 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
    11 See, Carmody v. Aho, 251 Minn. 19 , 86 N. W. (2d) 692 ; Grismore v. Consolidated Products Co. 232 Iowa 328 , 5 N. W. (2d) 646 , which contains an extensive discussion of the problem; 20 Am.
  • Peters v. Peterson 120 N.W.2d 846 Minn. 1963
  • Peters v. Peterson 120 N.W.2d 846 Minn. 1963
    1 Carmody v. Aho, 251 Minn. 19 , 86 N. W. (2d) 692 ; Hartmon v. National Heater Co. 240 Minn. 264, 277 , 60 N. W. (2d) 804, 812 .
  • Murphy v. Hennen 119 N.W.2d 489 Minn. 1963
  • Murphy v. Hennen 119 N.W.2d 489 Minn. 1963
    Even though it may be rather common practice for adversaries to agree that such opinions be received, especially from experienced and dedicated traffic officers, the mischief in having the rule conform to the practice is that it encourages trial by experts rather than by witnesses, as pointed out by Mr. Chief Justice Knutson in Carmody v. Aho, 251 Minn. 19 , 86 N. W. (2d) 692 .
  • Dyson v. Schmidt 109 N.W.2d 262 Minn. 1961
  • Dyson v. Schmidt 109 N.W.2d 262 Minn. 1961
    Carmody v. Aho, 251 Minn. 19 , 86 N. W. (2d) 692 .
  • McNab v. Jeppesen 102 N.W.2d 709 Minn. 1960
  • McNab v. Jeppesen 102 N.W.2d 709 Minn. 1960
    In Carmody v. Aho, 251 Minn. 19, 24 , 86 N. W. (2d) 692, 695 , under circumstances similar to the instant case we held that the opinion of an engineer expert was not admissible in evidence to establish the point of impact of two automobiles involved in a collision, stating: *18 “The opinion is intended to assist the jury in arriving at a correct con
  • Erickson v. Strickler 90 N.W.2d 232 Minn. 1958
  • Erickson v. Strickler 90 N.W.2d 232 Minn. 1958
    Co. 73 Minn. 189 , , and that the evidence adduced in this case provides nothing more than a foundation for “a random guess or speculation.” Swenson v. Erlandson, 86 Minn. 263 , ; McCool v. Davis, 158 Minn. 146, 155 , ; Silver v. Harbison, 178 Minn. 271 , ; Carmody v. Aho, 251 Minn. 19 , 86 N. W. (2d) 692 .
  • Gross v. Hoag 87 N.W.2d 542 Minn. 1958
  • Gross v. Hoag 87 N.W.2d 542 Minn. 1958
    Cox v. Chicago, R. I. & P. R. Co. 250 Minn. 187 , 84 N. W. (2d) 263 ; Carmody v. Aho, 251 Minn. 19 , 86 N. W. (2d) 692 .