DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Tollefson v. Ehlers, 90 N.W.2d 205.

30 citing documents.

  • George v. Estate of Baker 724 N.W.2d 1 Minn. 2006
  • George v. Estate of Baker 724 N.W.2d 1 Minn. 2006
    224 (1894) (“There is high authority for the proposition that courts can take judicial notice of the Carlisle Tables, and can use them in estimating the probable length of life, whether they were introduced in evidence or not.”); Tollefson v. Ehlers, 252 Minn. 370, 377 , (accepting the American Experience Tables of Mortality); Hallada v. Great N. Ry., 244 Minn. 81, 95 , -85 (1955) (accepting the U.S. Life Experience Table of Mortality), overruled on other grounds by Busch v. Busch Const., Inc.,
  • Kirsebom v. Connelly 486 N.W.2d 172 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
  • Kirsebom v. Connelly 486 N.W.2d 172 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
    Tollefson v. Ehlers, 252 Minn. 370, 376
  • Campion v. Knutson 239 N.W.2d 248 Minn. 1976
  • Campion v. Knutson 239 N.W.2d 248 Minn. 1976
    Tollefson v. Ehlers, 252 Minn. 370 , Holmboe v. Cook, 288 Minn. 222
  • Sellnow v. Fahey 233 N.W.2d 563 Minn. 1975
  • Sellnow v. Fahey 233 N.W.2d 563 Minn. 1975
    See, also, Tollefson v. Ehlers, 252 Minn. 370 , Fussner v. Andert, supra.
  • Seivert v. Bass 181 N.W.2d 888 Minn. 1970
  • Seivert v. Bass 181 N.W.2d 888 Minn. 1970
    In support of their contention they cite Dose v. Yager, 231 Minn. 90 , 42 N. W. (2d) 420 ; Neal v. Neal, 238 Minn. 292 , 56 N. W. (2d) 673 ; Schleuder v. Soltow, 239 Minn. 453 , 59 N. W. (2d) 320 ; and Tollefson v. Ehlers, 252 Minn. 370 , 90 N. W. (2d) 205 .
  • Kennedy v. Caudell 151 N.W.2d 407 Minn. 1967
  • Kennedy v. Caudell 151 N.W.2d 407 Minn. 1967
    Bocchi v. Karnstedt, 238 Minn. 257 , 56 N. W. (2d) 628 ; Schleuder v. Soltow, 239 Minn. 453 , 59 N. W. (2d) 320 ; Olson v. Anderson, 224 Minn. 216 , 28 N. W. (2d) 66 ; Lowery v. Clouse (8 Cir.) 348 F. (2d) 252; Tollefson v. Ehlers, 252 Minn. 370 , 90 N. W. (2d) 205 .
  • Peterson v. Rodekuhr 143 N.W.2d 226 Minn. 1966
  • Peterson v. Rodekuhr 143 N.W.2d 226 Minn. 1966
    See, also, Tollefson v. Ehlers, 252 Minn. 370 , 90 N. W. (2d) 205 ; Mocuik v. Svoboda, 253 Minn. 562 , 93 N. W. (2d) 547 .
  • McCorkell v. City of Northfield 136 N.W.2d 840 Minn. 1965
  • McCorkell v. City of Northfield 136 N.W.2d 840 Minn. 1965
    See, Fussner v. Andert, 261 Minn. 347 , 113 N. W. (2d) 355 ; Tollefson v. Ehlers, 252 Minn. 370 , 90 N. W. (2d) 205 ; Schroht v. Voll, 245 Minn. 114 , 71 N. W. (2d) 843 .
  • Rauk v. Vold 127 N.W.2d 687 Minn. 1964
  • Rauk v. Vold 127 N.W.2d 687 Minn. 1964
    Tollefson v. Ehlers, 252 Minn. 370 , 90 N. W. (2d) 205 .
  • Pogalz v. Kenna 126 N.W.2d 458 Minn. 1964
  • Pogalz v. Kenna 126 N.W.2d 458 Minn. 1964
    Tollefson v. Ehlers, 252 Minn. 370 , 90 N. W. (2d) 205 ; Blazek v. North American Life & Cas.
  • Aanenson v. Engelson 124 N.W.2d 360 Minn. 1963
  • Aanenson v. Engelson 124 N.W.2d 360 Minn. 1963
    7 Tollefson v. Ehlers, 252 Minn. 370, 376 , 90 N. W. (2d) 205, 210 .
  • Fussner v. Andert 113 N.W.2d 355 Minn. 1961
  • Fussner v. Andert 113 N.W.2d 355 Minn. 1961
    The reasonableness of the verdict is not to be tested by a *358 yardstick applicable to all cases since the peculiar facts of each case must be considered and weighed in the light of such variables as the decedent’s character, health, habits, talents, prospects, earnings, and parental contributions.” In Tollefson v. Ehlers, 252 Minn. 370 , 90 N. W. (2d) 205 (1958), a case involving the death of a young man 24 years of age, we sustained a verdict given to his father, aged 71, of $16,897.61.
  • Floen v. Sund 96 N.W.2d 563 Minn. 1959
  • Floen v. Sund 96 N.W.2d 563 Minn. 1959
    13 The life expectancy was determined from the American Experience Mortality Table, and while the jury was not required to accept this figure merely because of the table (Tollefson v. Ehlers, 252 Minn. 370 , 90 N. W. [2d] 205; Thoirs v. Pounsford, 210 Minn. 462 , ), certainly it was not required to totally disregard it.
  • Mocuik v. Svoboda 93 N.W.2d 547 Minn. 1958
  • Mocuik v. Svoboda 93 N.W.2d 547 Minn. 1958
    The proper application of the rule appellant seeks to invoke and the statutory provisions involved here have been adequately discussed in the recent case of Tollefson v. Ehlers, 252 Minn. 370 , 90 N. W. (2d) 205 .
  • Lee v. Smith 92 N.W.2d 117 Minn. 1958
  • Lee v. Smith 92 N.W.2d 117 Minn. 1958
    In preface to a discussion of the contentions relating to the error of the court in reading statutes, we are controlled here by the statement contained in the recent case of Tollefson v. Ehlers, 252 Minn. 370, 376 , 90 N. W. (2d) 205, 210 , in which we said: “* * * It is not always easy for the trial court to decide whether it is submitting only those statutes which have a direct bearing upon the case or whether it is actually resolving a fact question for the jury by not giving a certain statut