Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Pearson, 110 N.W.2d 206.

40 citing documents.

David Lindstrom, Trustee of the Gladys B Lindstrom Living Trust, et al., Appellants, Minn. Ct. App. 2026
See Minn. Stat. § 117.175; (observing that, in a condemnation action, “[t]he owner has the burden of 10 proving and establishing .
CBS MN Properties, LLC v. County of Hennepin Minn. Ct. App. 2024
CBS MN Properties, LLC v. County of Hennepin Minn. Ct. App. 2024
(observing that, in a condemnation action, “[t]he owner has the burden of proving and establishing .
Bigay v. Garvey 562 N.W.2d 695 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
Bigay v. Garvey 562 N.W.2d 695 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
See State by Lord v. *702 Pearson, 260 Minn. 477, 488 , (allowing cross-examination of expert witness to extend beyond matters brought out on direct).
State Ex Rel. Humphrey v. Baillon Co. 503 N.W.2d 799 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
State Ex Rel. Humphrey v. Baillon Co. 503 N.W.2d 799 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
See State by Lord v. Pearson, 260 Minn. 477, 482 , (under predecessor eminent domain provisions, appeal of a commissioners’ award was conducted under the rules of civil procedure).
State Ex Rel. Humprey v. Briggs 488 N.W.2d 811 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
State Ex Rel. Humprey v. Briggs 488 N.W.2d 811 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
State by Lord v. Pearson, 260 Minn. 477, 493
Eliason v. Textron, Inc. 400 N.W.2d 805 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Eliason v. Textron, Inc. 400 N.W.2d 805 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Generally, a new trial is not granted upon conflicting evidence unless the verdict is so manifestly contrary to the preponderance of the evidence as to suggest “the jury failed to consider all the evidence or acted under some mistake or from some improper motive, bias, feeling or caprice, instead of dispassionately and honestly exercising their judgment upon all the evidence.” State v. Pearson, 260 Minn. 477, 493
Peterson v. Little-Giant Glencoe Portable Elevator Division of Dynamics Corp. of America 349 N.W.2d 280 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Peterson v. Little-Giant Glencoe Portable Elevator Division of Dynamics Corp. of America 349 N.W.2d 280 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
State v. Pearson, 260 Minn. 477
Vaughn v. Love 347 N.W.2d 818 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Vaughn v. Love 347 N.W.2d 818 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
“The latitude to be allowed in cross examination on the merits is largely within the discretion of the trial court and its action will not be reversed on appeal except for a clear abuse of discretion.” State v. Pearson, 260 Minn. 477, 488 , citing Klingbeil v. Truesdell, 256 Minn. 360
Alexandria Lake Area Service Region v. Johnson 295 N.W.2d 588 Minn. 1980
Alexandria Lake Area Service Region v. Johnson 295 N.W.2d 588 Minn. 1980
State, by Mondale, v. Wren Inc., 275 Minn. 259, 262 , quoting State, by Lord, v. Pearson, 260 Minn. 477, 489-490
LaValle v. Aqualand Pool Co., Inc. 257 N.W.2d 324 Minn. 1977
LaValle v. Aqualand Pool Co., Inc. 257 N.W.2d 324 Minn. 1977
In State, by Lord, v. Pearson, 260 Minn. 477, 492 , where the only evidence relating to damages was opinion testimony, we observed: “ * * * When the question of damages is submitted to the jury the opinions of the experts are merely advisory, and the jury is not bound thereby.
Koenig v. Ludowese 243 N.W.2d 29 Minn. 1976
Koenig v. Ludowese 243 N.W.2d 29 Minn. 1976
See, State, by Lord, v. Pearson, 260 Minn. 477, 493
State v. Alexander 185 N.W.2d 887 Minn. 1971
State v. Alexander 185 N.W.2d 887 Minn. 1971
See, Nelson v. Austin Transit, Inc. 271 Minn., 377 , 135 N. W. (2d) 886 ; State, by Lord, v. Pearson, 260 Minn. 477 , 110 N. W. (2d) 206 .
State v. McAndrews 175 N.W.2d 492 Minn. 1970
State v. McAndrews 175 N.W.2d 492 Minn. 1970
See, State, by Mondale, v. Wren, Inc. 275 Minn. 259 , 146 N. W. (2d) 547 ; State, by Lord, v. Pearson, 260 Minn. 477 , 110 N. W. (2d) 206 .
State v. Goins 174 N.W.2d 231 Minn. 1970
State v. Goins 174 N.W.2d 231 Minn. 1970
State v. Robinson, 266 Minn. 166 , 128 N. W. (2d) 812 ; State, by Lord, v. Pearson, 260 Minn. 477 , 110 N. W. (2d) 206 .
City of Tucson v. LaForge 446 P.2d 692 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1968
State v. Wren, Inc. 146 N.W.2d 547 Minn. 1966
State v. Wren, Inc. 146 N.W.2d 547 Minn. 1966
The relation of this appeal to the prior hearing on the petition is well stated in State, by Lord, v. Pearson, 260 Minn. 477, 489 , 110 N. W. (2d) 206 , 215: “The proceedings prior to the award of the commissioners, including the petition and evidence thereon, are not before the court for review.
Northern States Power Company v. Esperson 144 N.W.2d 372 Minn. 1966
Northern States Power Company v. Esperson 144 N.W.2d 372 Minn. 1966
8(c), as interpreted by this court in State, by Lord, v. Pearson, 260 Minn. 477 , 110 N. W. (2d) 206 , and State v. Robinson, 266 Minn. 166 , 123 N. W. (2d) 812 .
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
See, State, by Lord, v. Pearson, 260 Minn. 477 , 110 N. W. (2d) 206 ; Brewitz v. City of St.
Vierling v. Independent School District No. 720 129 N.W.2d 338 Minn. 1964
Vierling v. Independent School District No. 720 129 N.W.2d 338 Minn. 1964
2, and 117.14; State, by Lord, v. North Star Concrete Co. 265 Minn. 483 , 122 N. W. (2d) 118 ; State, by Lord, v. Casey, 263 Minn. 47 , 115 N. W. (2d) 749 ; State, by Lord, v. Pearson, 260 Minn. 477 , 110 N. W. (2d) 206 ; State, by Lord, v. Rust, 256 Minn. 246 , 98 N. W. (2d) 271 ; City of Crookston v. Erickson, 244 Minn. 321 , 69 N. W. (2d) 909 ; Simmons v. St.
State v. Robinson 123 N.W.2d 812 Minn. 1963
State v. Robinson 123 N.W.2d 812 Minn. 1963
State, by Lord, v. Pearson, 260 Minn. 477 , .
In RE CONDEMNATION BY OAK CENTER CREAMERY CO. v. Grobe 119 N.W.2d 729 Minn. 1963
In RE CONDEMNATION BY OAK CENTER CREAMERY CO. v. Grobe 119 N.W.2d 729 Minn. 1963
Recently we held in State, by Lord, v. Pearson, 260 Minn. 477, 489 , 110 N. W. (2d) 206 ,215: “After the filing of an appeal from the viewers’ report in district court in an eminent domain proceeding it becomes a judicial proceeding and the Rules of Civil Procedure thereafter apply.” We hold, therefore, that while the eminent domain proceeding in this case may have had the aspec