Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Majerus v. Guelsow, 113 N.W.2d 450.

47 citing documents.

Alvin Glay, trustee for the next of kin of Unity McGill, Respondent/Cross-Appellant v. R.C. of St. Cloud, Inc., … Minn. 2026
Alvin Glay, trustee for the next of kin of Unity McGill, Respondent/Cross-Appellant v. R.C. of St. Cloud, Inc., … Minn. 2026
See State v. Weigold,[] –80 (Minn. 1968) (holding that a defendant who affirmatively consented on the record to closing a public trial by stating “I have no objection to this” could not challenge the closure on appeal); Majerus v. Guelsow,[] (citing that the “settled general rule is that a party cannot avail himself of invited error” and holding that a party who successfully persuaded the district court to change the answers to three jury interrogatories 14 beca
State of Minnesota v. Anthony James Trifiletti Minn. 2024
State of Minnesota v. Anthony James Trifiletti Minn. 2024
–80 (Minn. 1968) (holding that a defendant who affirmatively consented on the record to closing a public trial by stating “I have no objection to this” could not challenge the closure on appeal); (citing that the “settled general rule is that a party cannot avail himself of invited error” and holding that a party who successfully persuaded the district court to change the answers to three jury interrogatories because the answers were contrary to the evidence could not on appeal challenge t
Anthony Kelley, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
See Staub, d at 629-30 (reversing a grant of summary judgment because 9 there was a genuine issue of material fact as to whether a decedent’s fall was caused by the dangerous condition of the stair even when no one saw her fall); (determining that the issue of proximate cause was one for the jury when there was evidence that a dangerous staircase may have caused the decedent to fall, but no one saw him fall); McCarthy, d at 506 (concluding that a jury could find proximate cause between lead pain
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
The general rule in Minnesota is that “a party cannot avail himself of invited error.” (quotation omitted).
Devon James Pulczinski, Minn. 2022
It is a species of estoppel, Majerus v. Guelsow , rather than a pure forfeiture doctrine.
Minn. 2021
In re the Marriage of: Sheila L. Duhn, n/k/a Graff, petitioner, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
See 7 McAlpine v. Fidelity & Casualty Co., 158 N.W.
In re the Marriage of: Christopher John Anton v. Romona L. Sparks, f/k/a Romona L. Anton Minn. Ct. App. 2016
In re the Marriage of: Christopher John Anton v. Romona L. Sparks, f/k/a Romona L. Anton Minn. Ct. App. 2016
(“A reviewing court must generally consider only those issues that the record shows were presented and considered by the trial court in deciding the matter before it.”) (quotation omitted); see also Majerus v. Guelsow, 262 Minn. 1, 11, (“[A] party cannot avail himself of invited error.”).
State v. Gisege 561 N.W.2d 152 Minn. 1997
State v. Gisege 561 N.W.2d 152 Minn. 1997
The general rule in Minnesota is that “a party cannot avail himself of invited error.” Majerus v. Guelsow, 262 Minn. 1, 11 , (citing McAlpine v. Fidelity & Cas.
Alevizos v. METROPOLITAN AIRPORTS COM'N 452 N.W.2d 492 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
Alevizos v. METROPOLITAN AIRPORTS COM'N 452 N.W.2d 492 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
See Majerus v. Guelsow, 262 Minn. 1, 6
Betz Ex Rel. Betz v. Nelson 367 N.W.2d 922 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Betz Ex Rel. Betz v. Nelson 367 N.W.2d 922 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Majerus v. Guelsow, 262 Minn. 1
Zinnel v. Berghuis Construction Co. 274 N.W.2d 495 Minn. 1979
Zinnel v. Berghuis Construction Co. 274 N.W.2d 495 Minn. 1979
5 The present case is distinguishable from our decision in Smith v. Lafortune, 288 Minn. 135 , Larson v. Township of New Haven, 282 Minn. 447 , Dornack v. Barton Const. Co., 272 Minn. 307 , Majerus v. Guelsow, 262 Minn. 1
Wright v. M. B. Hagen Realty Co. 269 N.W.2d 62 Minn. 1978
Wright v. M. B. Hagen Realty Co. 269 N.W.2d 62 Minn. 1978
In Majerus v. Guelsow, 262 Minn. 1 , this court said: “ * * * [Ajnswers to special interrogatories or special verdicts are not simply advisory; but at the same time they are no more final than a general verdict.
Jackson v. Reiling 249 N.W.2d 896 Minn. 1977
Jackson v. Reiling 249 N.W.2d 896 Minn. 1977
Ellering v. Gross, 189 Minn. 68 , cf. Majerus v. Guelsow, 262 Minn. 1
Haessly v. Lotzer 245 N.W.2d 841 Minn. 1976
Haessly v. Lotzer 245 N.W.2d 841 Minn. 1976
In Majerus v. Guelsow, 262 Minn. 1 , this court, in a remarkably similar case, sustained a jury verdict for the plaintiff in an action for death by wrongful act where the decedent had apparently fallen down a flight of stairs but no eyewitnesses to the event were present.
Evanson v. Jerowski 241 N.W.2d 636 Minn. 1976
Evanson v. Jerowski 241 N.W.2d 636 Minn. 1976
That he had a choice to avoid the risk or chance it and voluntarily chose to chance it.” Respondents contend that the evidence, viewed as it must be in the light most favorable to the verdict, Majerus v. Guelsow, 262 Minn. 1 , supports the jury’s finding of assumption of risk.
Control Data Corp. v. Garrison 233 N.W.2d 740 Minn. 1975
Control Data Corp. v. Garrison 233 N.W.2d 740 Minn. 1975
See, Hill v. Wilmington Chemical Co. 279 Minn. 336 , Majerus v. Guelsow, 262 Minn. 1
Gillen v. Commissioner of Taxation 232 N.W.2d 894 Minn. 1975
Gillen v. Commissioner of Taxation 232 N.W.2d 894 Minn. 1975
Majerus v. Guelsow, 262 Minn. 1
Bastianson v. Forschen 202 N.W.2d 667 Minn. 1972
Bastianson v. Forschen 202 N.W.2d 667 Minn. 1972
Majerus v. Guelsow, 262 Minn. 1 , * * *.
Shafer Ex Rel. Shafer v. Gaylord 176 N.W.2d 745 Minn. 1970
Shafer Ex Rel. Shafer v. Gaylord 176 N.W.2d 745 Minn. 1970
Lee v. Smith, 253 Minn. 401 , 92 N. W. (2d) 117 ; Erickson v. Strickler, 252 Minn. 351 , 90 N. W. (2d) 232 ; Majerus v. Guelsow, 262 Minn. 1 , 113 N. W. (2d) 450 ; Simon v. Carroll, 241 Minn. 211 , 62 N. W. (2d) 822 ; and 19 Dunnell, Dig.
Trail v. Village of Elk River 175 N.W.2d 916 Minn. 1970
Trail v. Village of Elk River 175 N.W.2d 916 Minn. 1970
6 Majerus v. Guelsow, 262 Minn. 1 , 113 N. W. (2d) 450 .
Kramer v. Kramer 162 N.W.2d 708 Minn. 1968
Kramer v. Kramer 162 N.W.2d 708 Minn. 1968
In Majerus v. Guelsow, 262 Minn. 1, 6 , 113 N. W. (2d) 450, 454 , this court stated the rule to be as follows: “Where one party moves for a directed verdict, he admits for the purposes of the motion the credibility of the evidence for the adverse party and every inference which may be fairly drawn from such evidence, and the most favorable aspect must
Muckler v. Buchl 150 N.W.2d 689 Minn. 1967
Muckler v. Buchl 150 N.W.2d 689 Minn. 1967
Were it not for our decision in Majerus v. Guelsow, 262 Minn. 1 , 113 N. W. (2d) 450 , we would be hesitant to affirm the jury’s implicit finding that decedent was caused to fall because of the darkness of the stairway, there being no direct evidence on the issue.
Indianhead Truck Line, Inc. v. Anderson 139 N.W.2d 271 Minn. 1965
Indianhead Truck Line, Inc. v. Anderson 139 N.W.2d 271 Minn. 1965
Our latest expression is to be found in Majerus v. Guelsow, 262 Minn. 1 , 113 N. W. (2d) 450 .
Jones v. Whitaker Buick Co. 130 N.W.2d 334 Minn. 1964
Jones v. Whitaker Buick Co. 130 N.W.2d 334 Minn. 1964
dence that the want of negligence or the presence of contributory negligence is so clear as to leave no room for an honest difference of opinion among reasonable men.” Plaintiff urges that the only question presented to the court on a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict is whether there is any *57 competent evidence reasonably tending to sustain the verdict, citing Majerus v. Guelsow, 262 Minn. 1 , 113 N. W. (2d) 450 .
Elk River Concrete Products Co. v. American Casualty Co. of Reading 129 N.W.2d 309 Minn. 1964
Elk River Concrete Products Co. v. American Casualty Co. of Reading 129 N.W.2d 309 Minn. 1964
Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 49; Majerus v. Guelsow, 262 Minn. 1 , 113 N. W. (2d) 450 ; Wintersberger v. Pioneer Iron & Metal Co. 6 Wis.

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by