DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

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

62 citing documents.

  • Ritalka, Inc., Respondent, 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, Appellant, 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, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
    Evidence is relevant if it “logically tends to prove or disprove a material fact in issue.”
  • Amy Stevens, Respondent, 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, Relator v. Video Surveillance Solutions, Inc., Department of Employment and Economic Development Minn. Ct. App. 2015
  • John K. Hochstein, Relator 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?