Cited by
Opinions in Minnesota that cite Murphy v. Hennen, 119 N.W.2d 489.
- Osborne v. Twin Town Bowl, Inc. 749 N.W.2d 367 Minn. 2008
-
Osborne v. Twin Town Bowl, Inc.
749 N.W.2d 367
Minn. 2008
Our conclusion is further supported by our holding in Murphy v. Hennen, 264 Minn. 457
- Osborne v. Twin Town Bowl, Inc. 730 N.W.2d 307 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
- Rambaum v. Swisher 423 N.W.2d 68 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
-
Rambaum v. Swisher
423 N.W.2d 68
Minn. Ct. App. 1988
See, e.g., Murphy v. Hennen, 264 Minn. 457, 461-62 , (sales to minors); Strand v. Village of Watson, 245 Minn. 414, 422 , (sales to obviously intoxicated persons); Fest v. Olson, 138 Minn. 31, 33 , 163 N.W.
- Danielson v. Johnson 366 N.W.2d 309 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
-
Danielson v. Johnson
366 N.W.2d 309
Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Murphy v. Hennen, 264 Minn. 457
- State v. Dewey 272 N.W.2d 355 Minn. 1978
-
State v. Dewey
272 N.W.2d 355
Minn. 1978
The approach of the Carmody case has been followed by this court in numerous cases since then: Schoeb v. Cowles, 279 Minn. 331 , Montagne v. Stenvold, 276 Minn. 547 , Murphy v. Hennen, 264 Minn. 457 , McNab v. Jeppesen, 258 Minn. 15
- Hammerschmidt v. Moore 274 N.W.2d 79 Minn. 1978
-
Hammerschmidt v. Moore
274 N.W.2d 79
Minn. 1978
Murphy v. Hennen, 264 Minn. 457 , .
- Bohach v. Thompson 239 N.W.2d 764 Minn. 1976
-
Bohach v. Thompson
239 N.W.2d 764
Minn. 1976
In Murphy v. Hennen, 264 Minn. 457, 464 , we said: “The admissibility of a claimed expert’s opinion is within the *335 discretion of the court, and any ruling will not be reversed unless there is an abuse of discretion which results in prejudice to the objector.” Therefore, the question on this appeal is whether the trial
- Smith Ex Rel. Smith v. Lafortune 179 N.W.2d 136 Minn. 1970
-
Smith Ex Rel. Smith v. Lafortune
179 N.W.2d 136
Minn. 1970
1 Beckman v. Schroeder, 224 Minn. 370 , 28 N. W. (2d) 629 ; Boutang v. Twin City Motor Bus Co. 248 Minn. 240, 251 , 80 N. W. (2d) 30, 39 ; Carmody v. Aho, 251 Minn. 19, 23 , 86 N. W. (2d) 692, 695 ; and Murphy v. Hennen, 264 Minn. 457, 464 , 119 N. W. (2d) 489, 493 .
- 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
In Murphy v. Hennen, 264 Minn. 457, 463 , 119 N. W. (2d) 489, 493 , this court said: *390 “* * * We have held that intoxicants consumed as a result of illegal sales need not be the sole cause of intoxication.
- Tayam v. Executive Aero, Inc. 166 N.W.2d 584 Minn. 1969
-
Tayam v. Executive Aero, Inc.
166 N.W.2d 584
Minn. 1969
See, e. g., Teslow v. Minneapolis-Honeywell Regulator Co. 273 Minn. 309 , 141 N. W. (2d) 507 ; Peters v. Peterson, 265 Minn. 131 , 120 N. W. (2d) 846 , 9 A. L. R. (3d) 1430; Murphy v. Hennen, 264 Minn. 457 , 119 N. W. (2d) 489 .
- Skaja v. Andrews Hotel Company 161 N.W.2d 657 Minn. 1968
-
Skaja v. Andrews Hotel Company
161 N.W.2d 657
Minn. 1968
Murphy v. Hennen, 264 Minn. 457 , 119 N. W. (2d) 489 .
- Schoeb v. Cowles 156 N.W.2d 895 Minn. 1968
-
Schoeb v. Cowles
156 N.W.2d 895
Minn. 1968
Murphy v. Hennen, 264 Minn. 457 , 119 N. W. (2d) 489 ; Carmody v. Aho, 251 Minn. 19 , 86 N. W. (2d) 692 .
- Montagne v. Stenvold 148 N.W.2d 815 Minn. 1967
-
Montagne v. Stenvold
148 N.W.2d 815
Minn. 1967
This suspected substitution of the opinion of a claimed expert for the combined judgment of the jury based on the testimony of those who witnessed the accident is the prejudice which the rule is designed to prevent as we recently explained in Murphy v. Hennen, 264 Minn. 457 , 119 N. W. (2d) 489 .
- Kvanli v. Village of Watson 139 N.W.2d 275 Minn. 1965
-
Kvanli v. Village of Watson
139 N.W.2d 275
Minn. 1965
Benes v. Campion, 186 Minn. 578 , ; Murphy v. Hennen, 264 Minn. 457 , 119 N. W. (2d) 489 , noted in 48 Minn. L. Rev. 126 .
- Bundy v. City of Fridley 122 N.W.2d 585 Minn. 1963
-
Bundy v. City of Fridley
122 N.W.2d 585
Minn. 1963
guardian, or next friend, as the court directs; and all suits for damages under this section shall be by civil action in any court of this state having jurisdiction thereof.” 2 Hahn v. City of Ortonville, 238 Minn. 428 , 57 N. W. (2d) 254 ; Beck v. Groe, 245 Minn. 28 , 70 N. W. (2d) 886 , 52 A. L. R. (2d) 875; Lund v. Village of Watson, 260 Minn. 273 , 109 N. W. (2d) 564 ; and Murphy v. Hennen, 264 Minn. 457 , 119 N. W. (2d) 489 .
- Dahl v. NORTHWESTERN NATIONAL BANK MINNEAPOLIS 121 N.W.2d 321 Minn. 1963
-
Dahl v. NORTHWESTERN NATIONAL BANK MINNEAPOLIS
121 N.W.2d 321
Minn. 1963
See, Murphy v. Hennen, 264 Minn. 457 , 119 N. W. (2d) 489 ; Randall v. Village of Excelsior, 258 Minn. 81 , 103 N. W. (2d) 131 ; Ritter v. Village of Appleton, 254 Minn. 30 , 93 N. W. (2d) 683 ; Hartwig v. Loyal Order of Moose, supra; Schmidt v. Driscoll Hotel, Inc. 249 Minn. 376 , 82 N. W. (2d) 365 ; Adamson v. Dougherty, supra; Strand v. Village of Wat