Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Hayden Miller Co., 116 N.W.2d 535.

28 citing documents.

Minn. 2020
(); see also Underwood v. Town Bd.
ORDER PROMULGATING AMENDMENTS TO THE MINNESOTA RULES OF EVIDENCE. Minn. 2016
ORDER PROMULGATING AMENDMENTS TO THE MINNESOTA RULES OF EVIDENCE. Minn. 2016
263 Minn. 29, 35, 116 NW2d 535, 539 (1962) in which the Court holds that bias resulting from specialized or personal knowledge of the dispute and withheld on voir dire is subject to inquiry.
State Ex Rel. Humphrey v. Strom 493 N.W.2d 554 Minn. 1992
State Ex Rel. Humphrey v. Strom 493 N.W.2d 554 Minn. 1992
We have held that damages sustained “by reason of inconvenience affecting the use and enjoyment of the remainder may be considered by the jury not as an independent item of loss but as an element which affects the market value of the remaining area.” State v. Hayden Miller Co., 263 Minn. 29, 33
State Ex Rel. Spannaus v. Northwest Airlines, Inc. 413 N.W.2d 514 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Bulletin Publishing Corp. v. City of Cottage Grove 379 N.W.2d 685 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Bulletin Publishing Corp. v. City of Cottage Grove 379 N.W.2d 685 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
See Holt, ; State by Lord v. Hayden Miller Co., 263 Minn. 29
Blackburn, Nickels & Smith, Inc. v. Erickson 366 N.W.2d 640 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
City of Chisago City v. Holt 360 N.W.2d 390 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
City of Chisago City v. Holt 360 N.W.2d 390 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
State by Lord v. Hayden Miller Company, 263 Minn. 29
E. H. Willmus Properties, Inc. v. Village of New Brighton 199 N.W.2d 435 Minn. 1972
E. H. Willmus Properties, Inc. v. Village of New Brighton 199 N.W.2d 435 Minn. 1972
State, by Mondale, v. Mecklenburg [ 273 Minn. 135 , ]; State, by Lord, v. Hayden Miller Co. 263 Minn. 29 , 116 N. W. (2d) 535 .
Olberg v. Minneapolis Gas Company 191 N.W.2d 418 Minn. 1971
Olberg v. Minneapolis Gas Company 191 N.W.2d 418 Minn. 1971
In State, by Lord, v. Hayden Miller Co. 263 Minn. 29, 35 , we stated that the exclusion rule “does not extend to statements of jurors who may have on voir dire concealed prejudice or bias which would have disqualified them or to misconduct of a juror in making an independent inspection of the property in question contrary to the court’s ins
Victor Co. v. State Ex Rel. Head 186 N.W.2d 168 Minn. 1971
Victor Co. v. State Ex Rel. Head 186 N.W.2d 168 Minn. 1971
v. Fitzpatrick, 201 Minn. 442 , ; State, by Lord, v. Hayden Miller Co. 263 Minn. 29 , 116 N. W. (2d) 535 .
City of St. Louis Park v. Engell 168 N.W.2d 3 Minn. 1969
City of St. Louis Park v. Engell 168 N.W.2d 3 Minn. 1969
State, by Mondale, v. Mecklenburg, supra; State, by Lord, v. Hayden Miller Co. 263 Minn. 29 , 116 N. W. (2d) 535 .
Huisinga Farms, Inc. v. Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance 154 N.W.2d 406 Minn. 1967
Huisinga Farms, Inc. v. Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance 154 N.W.2d 406 Minn. 1967
Shastid v. Shue, 247 Minn. 314 , 77 N. W. (2d) 273 ; State, by Lord, v. Hayden Miller Co. 263 Minn. 29 , 116 N. W. (2d) 535 ; Lott v. Davidson, 261 Minn. 130 , 109 N. W. (2d) 336 ; 14 Dunnell, Dig.
Board of Trustees Eloy Elemen. Sch. Dist. v. McEwen 430 P.2d 727 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1967
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 .
State, by Mondale v. Mecklenburg 140 N.W.2d 310 Minn. 1966
State, by Mondale v. Mecklenburg 140 N.W.2d 310 Minn. 1966
In State, by Lord, v. Hayden Miller Co. 263 Minn. 29 , 116 N. W. (2d) 535, 536 , we stated: “Where part of a tract is taken by eminent domain, the owner is entitled to the difference between the market value of the tract immediately before the taking and the market value of what is left after the taking, excluding from consideration general benefits and deducting from t
State v. Polk 116 N.W.2d 540 Minn. 1962
State v. Polk 116 N.W.2d 540 Minn. 1962
1 State, by Lord, v. Hayden Miller Co. 263 Minn. 29 , 116 N. W. (2d) 535 .