Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Gardner v. Coca-Cola Bottling Co. of Minnesota, Inc., 127 N.W.2d 557.

42 citing documents.

Frazier v. Burlington Northern Santa Fe Corp. 811 N.W.2d 618 Minn. 2012
Frazier v. Burlington Northern Santa Fe Corp. 811 N.W.2d 618 Minn. 2012
ilroad had “ ‘bungled’ evidence, engaged in ‘sloppy ev-identiary maintenance and preservation,’ and that ‘there has been [a] clear and convincing showing of negligence.’ ” A district court has considerable latitude in the choice of language used in jury instructions, and we do not reverse “simply because a litigant preferred to use *630 other language.” Gardner v. Coca-Cola Bottling Co. of Minn., 267 Minn. 505, 512
Matter of Grafstrom 490 N.W.2d 632 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
Matter of Grafstrom 490 N.W.2d 632 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
Gardner v. Coca-Cola Bottling Co., 267 Minn. 505, 513
Dallum v. Farmers Union Central Exchange, Inc. 462 N.W.2d 608 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
Dallum v. Farmers Union Central Exchange, Inc. 462 N.W.2d 608 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
In addition, “the trial court has considerable latitude in the choice of language to be used in its instructions * * *.” Gardner v. Coca Cola Bottling Co., 267 Minn. 505, 512 , (footnote omitted); pet.
Benson v. Northern Gopher Enterprises, Inc. 455 N.W.2d 444 Minn. 1990
Benson v. Northern Gopher Enterprises, Inc. 455 N.W.2d 444 Minn. 1990
Gardner v. Coca Cola Bottling Co., 267 Minn. 505, 513
Coughlin v. LaBounty 354 N.W.2d 48 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Coughlin v. LaBounty 354 N.W.2d 48 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
committee comment — 1977, found in, Minnesota Rules of Court 340 (West 1984), see Gardner v. Coca-Cola Bottling Co., 267 Minn. 505
Peterson v. Bendix Home Systems, Inc. 318 N.W.2d 50 Minn. 1982
Peterson v. Bendix Home Systems, Inc. 318 N.W.2d 50 Minn. 1982
Gardner v. Coca-Cola Bottling Co., 267 Minn. 505, 511
City of New Prague, County of Scoot v. Hendricks 286 N.W.2d 696 Minn. 1979
City of New Prague, County of Scoot v. Hendricks 286 N.W.2d 696 Minn. 1979
Gardner v. Coca Cola Bottling Co. of Minnesota, 267 Minn. 505
Romanik v. Toro Co. 277 N.W.2d 515 Minn. 1979
Romanik v. Toro Co. 277 N.W.2d 515 Minn. 1979
Gardner v. Coca-Cola Bottling Co., 267 Minn. 505, 510
Wenner v. Gulf Oil Corp. 264 N.W.2d 374 Minn. 1978
Wenner v. Gulf Oil Corp. 264 N.W.2d 374 Minn. 1978
Minn. 445, 450 , we stated: *383 “While there are cases to the contrary, we believe that the weight of authority and sound reason support the view that, in an action based on a breach of implied warranty, contributory negligence of the buyer is a good defense insofar as a right to recover consequential damages is concerned.” See, also, Gardner v. Coca-Cola Bottling Co., 267 Minn. 505, 511
Busch v. Busch Construction, Inc. 262 N.W.2d 377 Minn. 1977
Busch v. Busch Construction, Inc. 262 N.W.2d 377 Minn. 1977
See, Gardner v. Coca-Cola Bottling Co., 267 Minn. 505, 513
Goblirsch v. Western Land Roller Co. 246 N.W.2d 687 Minn. 1976
Goblirsch v. Western Land Roller Co. 246 N.W.2d 687 Minn. 1976
See, also, Gardner v. Coca-Cola Bottling Co. 267 Minn. 505
Milbank Mutual Insurance v. Proksch 244 N.W.2d 105 Minn. 1976
Milbank Mutual Insurance v. Proksch 244 N.W.2d 105 Minn. 1976
Beck v. Spindler, 256 Minn. 543 , see Gardner v. Coca-Cola Bottling Co., 267 Minn. 505 , ” 21A M.S.A.
Smith v. KAHLER CORPORATION, INC. 211 N.W.2d 146 Minn. 1973
Smith v. KAHLER CORPORATION, INC. 211 N.W.2d 146 Minn. 1973
Gard *277 ner v. Coca Cola Bottling Co. 267 Minn. 505
State v. Smith 203 N.W.2d 348 Minn. 1972
State v. Smith 203 N.W.2d 348 Minn. 1972
“An expert may give his opinion if based upon a factual foundation supported by the evidence, even though it directly bears on the issue to be determined by the jury.” Gardner v. Coca-Cola Bottling Co. 267 Minn. 505, 513 , State v. McCarthy, 259 Minn. 24 , State v. Schwartz, 266 Minn. 104
Lee v. Crookston Coca-Cola Bottling Company 188 N.W.2d 426 Minn. 1971
Holkestad v. Coca-Cola Bottling Co. of Minnesota, Inc. 180 N.W.2d 860 Minn. 1970
Holkestad v. Coca-Cola Bottling Co. of Minnesota, Inc. 180 N.W.2d 860 Minn. 1970
Gardner v. Coca-Cola Bottling Co. 267 Minn. 505 , 127 N. W. (2d) 557 ; Smith v: Hencir-Nichols, Inc. 276 Minn. 390 , 150 N. W. (2d) 556 ; Prosser, Torts (3 ed.) § 39, pp. 222 to 225.
Farr v. Armstrong Rubber Company 179 N.W.2d 64 Minn. 1970
Farr v. Armstrong Rubber Company 179 N.W.2d 64 Minn. 1970
336.2 — 314[2] [c]), in which “merchantable” is defined as “fit for the ordinary purpose for which such goods are used.” In Pietrus v. J. R. Watkins Co. 229 Minn. 179 , 38 N. W. (2d) 799 , involving an injury claim arising from the use of shampoo, the court held that there was a breach of warranty that the shampoo was “suitable and fit.” See, also, Gardner v. Coca-Cola Bottling Co. 267 Minn. 505 , 127 N. W. (2d) 557 ; Henningsen v. Bloomfield Motors, Inc. 32 N. J. 358, 161 A. (2d) 69, 75 A. L. R
Moosbrugger v. McGraw-Edison Company 170 N.W.2d 72 Minn. 1969
Moosbrugger v. McGraw-Edison Company 170 N.W.2d 72 Minn. 1969
In Gardner v. Coca Cola Bottling Co. 267 Minn. 505, 511 , 127 N. W. (2d) 557, 562 , we recognized that the defense of improper use is, in essence, contributory negligence.
Kerr v. Corning Glass Works 169 N.W.2d 587 Minn. 1969
Kerr v. Corning Glass Works 169 N.W.2d 587 Minn. 1969
The trial court apparently relied on Gardner v. Coca Cola Bottling Co. 267 Minn. 505 , 127 N. W. (2d) 557 .
Stahlberg v. Moe 166 N.W.2d 340 Minn. 1969
Stahlberg v. Moe 166 N.W.2d 340 Minn. 1969
Gardner v. Coca Cola Bottling Co. 267 Minn. 505, 509 , 127 N. W. (2d) 557, 561 .
Bailey v. Montgomery Ward and Company 431 P.2d 108 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1967
Bates v. ROOT-LOWELL MANUFACTURING COMPANY 149 N.W.2d 507 Minn. 1967
Bates v. ROOT-LOWELL MANUFACTURING COMPANY 149 N.W.2d 507 Minn. 1967
Co. 255 Minn. 19 , 95 N. W. (2d) 497 ; Hacker v. Berkner, 263 Minn. 278 , 117 N. W. (2d) 13 ; Peterson v. Modjeski, 263 Minn. 413 , 117 N. W. (2d) 237 ; Gardner v. Coca Cola Bottling Co. 267 Minn. 505 , 127 N. W. (2d) 557 ; Sarsfield v. St.

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by