Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Boland v. Morrill, 132 N.W.2d 711.

62 citing documents.

Ritalka, Inc. v. Amanda Jean Smith, et al., Noel Jennings Smith Minn. Ct. App. 2025
A list of the items Amanda purchased with stolen funds and a summary of those purchases were relevant “to prove or disprove a material fact in issue.” see also Minn. R. Evid.
Kyle Wendell Else v. Auto-Owners Insurance Company Minn. Ct. App. 2020
18 Evidence is relevant if it “logically tends to pr ove or disprove a material fact in issue.”
In the Matter of: Carole Anne Rosemary Dobson v. Ryan Leon Solee Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Evidence is relevant if it “logically tends to prove or disprove a material fact in issue.”
Amy Stevens v. Smart Parts Automotive, Inc., Department of Employment and Economic Development Minn. Ct. App. 2017
1977) (recognizing an employer-employee relationship where em ployees were paid solely on commission); Boland v. Morrill , 270 Minn. 86, 93, 716 (1965) (recognizing an employer-employee relationship where salesman was paid on commission).
John K. Hochstein v. Video Surveillance Solutions, Inc., Department of Employment and Economic Development Minn. Ct. App. 2015
John K. Hochstein v. Video Surveillance Solutions, Inc., Department of Employment and Economic Development Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Lake Superior Center Authority v. Hammel, Green & Abrahamson, Inc. 715 N.W.2d 458 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
Lake Superior Center Authority v. Hammel, Green & Abrahamson, Inc. 715 N.W.2d 458 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
Boland by Orr v. Morrill, 270 Minn. 86, 100
Weinberger v. Maplewood Review 668 N.W.2d 667 Minn. 2003
Weinberger v. Maplewood Review 668 N.W.2d 667 Minn. 2003
401 (emphasis added); see, e.g., Boland v. Morrill, 270 Minn. 86, 98-99 , (stating that “any evidence is relevant which logically tends to prove or disprove a material fact in issue”).
Shea v. Esensten 622 N.W.2d 130 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
Shea v. Esensten 622 N.W.2d 130 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
“Reduced to simple terms, any evidence is relevant which logically tends to prove or disprove a material fact in issue.” Boland v. Morrill, 270 Minn. 86, 98-99
Hentges v. Thomford 569 N.W.2d 424 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
Hentges v. Thomford 569 N.W.2d 424 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
Boland v. Morrill, 270 Minn. 86, 96 , But when the evidence in the record is conclusive on all of the necessary elements or there is an absence of evidence to support a necessary element, no fact issue is presented for the jury and the scope of employment is determined as a matter of law.
Neve v. Austin Daily Herald 552 N.W.2d 45 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
Neve v. Austin Daily Herald 552 N.W.2d 45 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
See Boland v. Morrill, 270 Minn. 86, 91 , (it is necessary to examine overall relationship between parties); Guhlke, 268 Minn. at 143-47 , d at 326-28 (reversing administrative determination of employment relationship because record did not support decision, even though alleged employer gave instructions regarding tim
Behlke v. Conwed Corp. 474 N.W.2d 351 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
Behlke v. Conwed Corp. 474 N.W.2d 351 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
In Boland v. Morrill, 270 Minn. 86, 98, 99 , the Court defined relevancy as a function of the effect the offered evidence might have upon the proof of a material fact in issue: If the offered evidence permits an inference to be drawn that will justify a desired finding of fact, it is relevant.
Rowe v. Goldberg 435 N.W.2d 605 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Luna v. Edel 417 N.W.2d 308 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Ellingson v. Burlington Northern Railroad 412 N.W.2d 401 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Ellingson v. Burlington Northern Railroad 412 N.W.2d 401 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Boland v. Morrill, 270 Minn. 86, 99 , see also Briggs v. Chicago, Great Western Railway Co., 238 Minn. 472, 495 , (counsel’s reference, in closing argument, to medical books was improper and prejudicial, requiring reversal of trial court’s denial of a new trial).
Bresson v. Stoskoph 370 N.W.2d 80 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Bresson v. Stoskoph 370 N.W.2d 80 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Minnesota Rules of Evidence defines relevant evidence as “evidence having any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence.” The Minnesota Supreme Court stated “any evidence is relevant which logically tends to prove or disprove a material fact in issue.” Boland v. Morrill, 270 Minn. 86, 98-99
State v. Hopperstad 367 N.W.2d 546 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
State v. Hopperstad 367 N.W.2d 546 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
“Reduced to simple terms, any evidence, is relevant which logically tends to prove or disprove a material fact in issue.” Boland v. Morrill, 270 Minn. 86, 98-99
State v. Lee 282 N.W.2d 896 Minn. 1979
State v. Lee 282 N.W.2d 896 Minn. 1979
Boland v. Morrill, 270 Minn. 86, 98 , Rule 401, Minnesota Rules of Evidence.
Colby v. Gibbons 276 N.W.2d 170 Minn. 1979
Colby v. Gibbons 276 N.W.2d 170 Minn. 1979
*176 Evidence is relevant if it “logically tends to prove or disprove a material fact in issue.” Boland v. Morrill, 270 Minn. 86, 99
Edgewater Motels, Inc. v. Gatzke 277 N.W.2d 11 Minn. 1979
Edgewater Motels, Inc. v. Gatzke 277 N.W.2d 11 Minn. 1979
Boland v. Morrill, 270 Minn. 86 , Restatement, Agency 2d, § 228.
Weiby v. Wente 264 N.W.2d 624 Minn. 1978
Weiby v. Wente 264 N.W.2d 624 Minn. 1978
Reduced to simple terms, any evidence is relevant which logically tends to prove or disprove a material fact in issue.” Boland v. Morrill, 270 Minn. 86, 98
State Ex Rel. Spannaus v. Mecca Enterprises, Inc. 262 N.W.2d 152 Minn. 1977
State Ex Rel. Spannaus v. Mecca Enterprises, Inc. 262 N.W.2d 152 Minn. 1977
The situation of Mecca’s representatives has parallels also in Boland v. Morrill, 270 Minn. 86 , where we found sufficient evidence to sustain a jury’s determination that a traveling salesman was an employee.
Helm v. El Rehbein & Son, Inc. 257 N.W.2d 584 Minn. 1977
Explained Helm v. El Rehbein & Son, Inc. 257 N.W.2d 584 Minn. 1977
We explained in Boland v. Morrill, 270 Minn. 86, 98 , : “ * * * Relevancy is largely a matter of logic.
Corbin v. Commissioner of Revenue 240 N.W.2d 809 Minn. 1976
Corbin v. Commissioner of Revenue 240 N.W.2d 809 Minn. 1976
As we stated in Boland v. Morrill, 270 Minn. 86, 91 , : “* * * n0 singie test is available for determining such relationship.
Wild v. Rarig 234 N.W.2d 775 Minn. 1975
Wild v. Rarig 234 N.W.2d 775 Minn. 1975
Boland v. Morrill, 270 Minn. 86
Janssen v. Neal 223 N.W.2d 804 Minn. 1974
Janssen v. Neal 223 N.W.2d 804 Minn. 1974
Boland v. Morrill, 270 Minn. 86
Lange v. National Biscuit Company 211 N.W.2d 783 Minn. 1973
Lange v. National Biscuit Company 211 N.W.2d 783 Minn. 1973
Co. 204 Minn. 422 , Porter v. Grennan Bakeries, Inc. 219 Minn. 14 , Boland v. Morrill, 270 Minn. 86 , Laurie v. Mueller, 248 Minn. 1
State v. Comparetto 193 N.W.2d 626 Minn. 1971
State v. Comparetto 193 N.W.2d 626 Minn. 1971
7 See, Boland v. Morrill, 270 Minn. 86, 100 , where we stated that the “primary consideration is prejudice.” 8 “Identification testimony need not be positive and certain; it is enough for a witness to testify that it is his opinion, belief, impression, or judgment that the defendant is the person he saw commit the crime.” Stat
Burman Company v. Zahler 178 N.W.2d 234 Minn. 1970
Burman Company v. Zahler 178 N.W.2d 234 Minn. 1970
See, Boland v. Morrill, 270 Minn. 86 , 132 N. W. (2d) 711 ; Restatement, Agency (2d) § 220, comment k. 4 “By Mr. Lammers [defendant’s attorney] “Q. Well, directing your attention just to the payments made that are shown on the W-2 forms, Mr. Zahler, do you know the purpose for which these payments were made?