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.

  • Ossenfort Ex Rel. Ossenfort v. Associated Milk Producers, Inc. 254 N.W.2d 672 Minn. 1977
    On June 24, 1975, after the jury returned its verdict, the court conducted a Schwartz hearing (Schwartz v. Minneapolis Suburban Bus Co., 258 Minn. 325 , [1960]; Olberg v. Minneapolis Gas Co., 291 Minn. 334 , [1971]) to determine the extent of the jurors’ knowledge of this news and the effect of such knowledge upon their verdict.
  • Easton Farmers Elevator Co. v. Chromalloy American Corp. 246 N.W.2d 705 Minn. 1976
  • Easton Farmers Elevator Co. v. Chromalloy American Corp. 246 N.W.2d 705 Minn. 1976
    Shortly after the conclusion of the trial, Chromalloy requested a hearing in accordance with the procedure set down in Schwartz v. Minneapolis Suburban Bus Co. 258 Minn. 325 , to determine the seriousness and impartiality of the jury.
  • Goblirsch v. Western Land Roller Co. 246 N.W.2d 687 Minn. 1976
  • Goblirsch v. Western Land Roller Co. 246 N.W.2d 687 Minn. 1976
    See, Schwartz v. Minneapolis Suburban Bus Co. 258 Minn. 325 , Olberg v. Minneapolis Gas Co. 291 Minn. 334
  • Nebben v. Kosmalski 239 N.W.2d 234 Minn. 1976
  • Nebben v. Kosmalski 239 N.W.2d 234 Minn. 1976
    Schwartz v. Minneapolis Suburban Bus Co. 258 Minn. 325
  • Ferguson v. Northern States Power Co. 239 N.W.2d 190 Minn. 1976
  • Ferguson v. Northern States Power Co. 239 N.W.2d 190 Minn. 1976
    Schwartz v. Minneapolis Suburban Bus Co. 258 Minn. 325
  • Custom Farm Services, Inc. v. Collins 238 N.W.2d 608 Minn. 1976
  • Custom Farm Services, Inc. v. Collins 238 N.W.2d 608 Minn. 1976
    See, Schwartz v. Minneapolis Suburban Bus Co. 258 Minn. 325
  • Schrupp v. Hanson 235 N.W.2d 822 Minn. 1975
  • Schrupp v. Hanson 235 N.W.2d 822 Minn. 1975
    Schwartz v. Minneapolis Suburban Bus Co. 258 Minn. 325
  • Fick v. Wolfinger 198 N.W.2d 146 Minn. 1972
  • Fick v. Wolfinger 198 N.W.2d 146 Minn. 1972
    Rather than promptly approaching the trial court with a request that the jurors be interrogated at a hearing on the matter, Schwartz v. Minneapolis Suburban Bus Co. 258 Minn. 325, 328 , Olberg v. Minneapolis Gas Co. 291 Minn. 334, 342 , plaintiff’s counsel unilaterally obtained affidavits from jurors.
  • Tupper v. Dirks 193 N.W.2d 800 Minn. 1972
  • Tupper v. Dirks 193 N.W.2d 800 Minn. 1972
    With respect to the claim of jury misconduct, plaintiff failed to pursue the procedures we outlined in Schwartz v. Minneapolis Suburban Bus Co. 258 Minn. 325 , recently reviewed in Olberg v. Minneapolis Gas Co. 291 Minn. 334
  • Olberg v. Minneapolis Gas Company 191 N.W.2d 418 Minn. 1971
  • Olberg v. Minneapolis Gas Company 191 N.W.2d 418 Minn. 1971
    We reiterate what we *343 said in Schwartz v. Minneapolis Suburban Bus Co. 258 Minn. 325, 328 , : “* * * [W]e are of the opinion that it is undesirable to permit attorneys or investigators for a defeated litigant to harass jurors by submitting them to interrogation of this kind without more protection for the ascertainment of the facts than appears in this case.
  • Patterson v. Donahue 190 N.W.2d 864 Minn. 1971
  • Patterson v. Donahue 190 N.W.2d 864 Minn. 1971
    Moreover, if the procedure outlined in Schwartz v. Minneapolis Suburban Bus Co. 258 Minn. 325 , is followed, litigants will not be precluded from asserting jury misconduct because of the actions of their attorneys.
  • Brooks Realty, Inc. v. Aetna Insurance Company 149 N.W.2d 494 Minn. 1967
  • Brooks Realty, Inc. v. Aetna Insurance Company 149 N.W.2d 494 Minn. 1967
    In Schwartz v. Minneapolis Suburban Bus Co. 258 Minn. 325 , 104 N. W. (2d) 301 , we stated what we thought was the better practice when that happens.
  • Weber v. Stokely-Van Camp, Inc. 144 N.W.2d 540 Minn. 1966
  • Weber v. Stokely-Van Camp, Inc. 144 N.W.2d 540 Minn. 1966
    Even improper conduct, if it occur during their deliberations, cannot be shown by the testimony of the jurors themselves.” As to the improper conduct charged against jurors outside the jury room, plaintiff relies upon State, by Lord, v. Hayden Miller Co. 263 Minn. 29 , 116 N. W. (2d) 535 , and Schwartz v. Minneapolis Suburban Bus Co. 258 Minn. 325 , 104 N. W. (2d) 301 .
  • Atkinson v. Mock 135 N.W.2d 892 Minn. 1965
  • Atkinson v. Mock 135 N.W.2d 892 Minn. 1965
    The court substantially followed the course we recommended in Schwartz v. Minneapolis Suburban Bus Co. 258 Minn. 325 , 104 N. W. (2d) 301 , and as a result of this examination came to the conclusion that Mrs. Hallermann in fact did not know that she was related to plaintiff until after the trial was over.
  • State v. Hayden Miller Co. 116 N.W.2d 535 Minn. 1962
  • State v. Hayden Miller Co. 116 N.W.2d 535 Minn. 1962
    In Schwartz v. Minneapolis Suburban Bus Co. 258 Minn. 325 , 104 N. W. (2d) 301 , we suggested that where it appears after the verdict is rendered that a juror’s untruthful answer to questions put to him on voir dire examination may have prevented a fair trial, the better practice is to take the matter up with the trial court so that the juror may be examined in the presence