Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Ericksen v. Wilson, 123 N.W.2d 687.

25 citing documents.

Williams v. National Football League 794 N.W.2d 391 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
Williams v. National Football League 794 N.W.2d 391 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
See, e.g., Ericksen v. Wilson, 266 Minn. 401, 404 , (holding that district court did not err by denying posttrial motion to amend complaint to state new theory of liability).
Knecht Bros. v. Ames Construction, Inc. 404 N.W.2d 859 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Knecht Bros. v. Ames Construction, Inc. 404 N.W.2d 859 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Ericksen v. Wilson, 266 Minn. 401, 406 , overruled on other grounds in Anderson v. Florence, 288 Minn. 351
Warrick v. Giron 290 N.W.2d 166 Minn. 1980
Warrick v. Giron 290 N.W.2d 166 Minn. 1980
See Ericksen v. Wilson, 266 Minn. 401
Lyons v. SCNEI, INC.(ZAYRE SHOPPER'S CITY) 262 N.W.2d 169 Minn. 1978
Lyons v. SCNEI, INC.(ZAYRE SHOPPER'S CITY) 262 N.W.2d 169 Minn. 1978
Ericksen v. Wilson, 266 Minn. 401
Utica Mutual Insurance v. Emmco Insurance 243 N.W.2d 134 Minn. 1976
Utica Mutual Insurance v. Emmco Insurance 243 N.W.2d 134 Minn. 1976
See, Anderson v. Florence, 288 Minn. 351 , reversing Ericksen v. Wilson, 266 Minn. 401 , and Hoffman v. Naslund, 274 Minn. 521
Larson v. Belzer Clinic 195 N.W.2d 416 Minn. 1972
Larson v. Belzer Clinic 195 N.W.2d 416 Minn. 1972
The trial court declined to continue the case or to follow the rule applied by Judge Nicholson, which we later sustained, and adhered to our holding in Ericksen v. Wilson, 266 Minn. 401 , and Hoffman v. Naslund, 274 Minn. 521 , overruled by us in the Anderson decision.
Neeriemer v. Superior Court of Maricopa County 477 P.2d 746 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
Anderson v. Florence 181 N.W.2d 873 Minn. 1970
Anderson v. Florence 181 N.W.2d 873 Minn. 1970
would be different if it were known that the patient had a circulatory problem in the leg involved.” *354 This form of pretrial discovery rather than that of oral deposition was chosen by prearrangement of counsel to accommodate defendant physician and to accomplish plaintiff’s announced purpose of laying a foundation for obtaining a reconsideration of our rule, enunciated in Ericksen v. Wilson, 266 Minn. 401 , 123 N. W. (2d) 687 , and Hoffman v. Naslund, 274 Minn. 521 , 144 N. W. (2d) 580 , whi
In Re Estate of Pundt 157 N.W.2d 839 Minn. 1968
Tuil v. Kelstrom 157 N.W.2d 839 Minn. 1968
In Re Estate of Pundt 157 N.W.2d 839 Minn. 1968
Ericksen v. Wilson, 266 Minn. 401 , .
Tuil v. Kelstrom 157 N.W.2d 839 Minn. 1968
Ericksen v. Wilson, 266 Minn. 401 , 123 N. W. (2d) 687 .
McCormack v. Hankscraft Company 154 N.W.2d 488 Minn. 1967
McCormack v. Hankscraft Company 154 N.W.2d 488 Minn. 1967
See, e. g., Miller v. Raaen, 273 Minn. 109 , 139 N. W. (2d) 877 ; Ericksen v. Wilson, 266 Minn. 401 , 123 N. W. (2d) 687 .
Fritz v. Parke Davis and Company 152 N.W.2d 129 Minn. 1967
Fritz v. Parke Davis and Company 152 N.W.2d 129 Minn. 1967
5 Ericksen v. Wilson, 266 Minn. 401 , 123 N. W. (2d) 687 .
Hoffman v. Naslund 144 N.W.2d 580 Minn. 1966
Hoffman v. Naslund 144 N.W.2d 580 Minn. 1966
This court has heretofore ruled on that issue in the case of Ericksen v. Wilson, 266 Minn. 401 , 123 N. W. (2d) 687 .