Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Sanchez v. Waldrup, 136 N.W.2d 61.

30 citing documents.

Patricia J. Marquardt, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Bohach v. Thompson 239 N.W.2d 764 Minn. 1976
Bohach v. Thompson 239 N.W.2d 764 Minn. 1976
However, “[i]n view of the importance normally accorded scientific training and knowledge” by a jury, Sanchez v. Waldrup, 271 Minn. 419, 430 , this court has consistently preferred eyewitness testimony and has allowed expert testimony on speed only where such eyewitness testimony is “nonexistent or of little aid to the jury in resolving the issue,” LeMieux v. Bishop, 296 Minn. 377 , .
Begin v. Weber 234 N.W.2d 192 Minn. 1975
Begin v. Weber 234 N.W.2d 192 Minn. 1975
Co. 276 Minn. 245 , Sanchez v. Waldrup, 271 Minn. 419 , Grorud v. Thomasson, 287 Minn 531
State v. Tereau 229 N.W.2d 27 Minn. 1975
State v. Tereau 229 N.W.2d 27 Minn. 1975
See, State v. Tinklenberg, 292 Minn. 271 , Sanchez v. Waldrup, 271 Minn. 419 , Grapentin v. Harvey, 262 Minn. 222
Swanson v. Williams 228 N.W.2d 860 Minn. 1975
Swanson v. Williams 228 N.W.2d 860 Minn. 1975
Sward v. Nash, 230 Minn. 100 , Sanchez v. Waldrup, 271 Minn. 419
Carpenter v. Mattison 219 N.W.2d 625 Minn. 1974
Carpenter v. Mattison 219 N.W.2d 625 Minn. 1974
Sanchez v. Waldrup, 271 Minn. 419 , Daugherty v. May Brothers Co. 265 Minn. 310
Lemieux v. Bishop 209 N.W.2d 379 Minn. 1973
Lemieux v. Bishop 209 N.W.2d 379 Minn. 1973
5 Indeed, such opinions, “based on observation and experience, are often more reliable than a calculation of speed [by an engineering expert] based on unknown variables that can change the result materially if they are not precisely correct.” Sanchez v. Waldrup, 271 Minn. 419, 426
State v. Tinklenberg 194 N.W.2d 590 Minn. 1972
State v. Tinklenberg 194 N.W.2d 590 Minn. 1972
Grapentin v. Harvey, 262 Minn. 222 , and Sanchez v. Waldrup, 271 Minn. 419 , cited by defendant, are not applicable here since in the present case there was sufficient evidence from which the coefficient of friction could be determined.
Lee v. Crookston Coca-Cola Bottling Company 188 N.W.2d 426 Minn. 1971
Cook Seed Company v. Welker 181 N.W.2d 870 Minn. 1970
Cook Seed Company v. Welker 181 N.W.2d 870 Minn. 1970
The court said: “If it was error it was not prejudicial because the jury apparently paid no attention to it.” The application and effect of a pretrial order pursuant to Rule 16 is discussed in 1 Youngquist & Blacik, Minnesota Rules Practice, 1968 Pocket Part, p. 121; Muckier v. Buchl, 276 Minn. 490 , 150 N. W. (2d) 689 ; and Sanchez v. Waldrup, 271 Minn. 419 , 186 N. W. (2d) 61 .
Thole v. Noorlun 177 N.W.2d 295 Minn. 1970
Thole v. Noorlun 177 N.W.2d 295 Minn. 1970
See, also, Sanchez v. Waldrup, 271 Minn. 419 , 136 N. W. (2d) 61 .
State v. Lloyd A. Fry Roofing Company 158 N.W.2d 851 Minn. 1968
State v. Lloyd A. Fry Roofing Company 158 N.W.2d 851 Minn. 1968
Sanchez v. Waldrup, 271 Minn. 419 , 136 N. W. (2d) 61 .
Muckler v. Buchl 150 N.W.2d 689 Minn. 1967
Muckler v. Buchl 150 N.W.2d 689 Minn. 1967
10 Cf. Sanchez v. Waldrup, 271 Minn. 419 , 136 N. W. (2d) 61 ; Lundin v. Stratmoen, 250 Minn. 555 , 85 N. W. (2d) 828 .
State v. Boening 149 N.W.2d 87 Minn. 1967
State v. Boening 149 N.W.2d 87 Minn. 1967
spection of any writing obtained or prepared by the adverse party, his attorney, surety, indemnitor, or agent in anticipation of litigation or in preparation for trial, or of any writing that reflects an attorney’s mental impressions, conclusions, opinions, or legal theories, or, except as provided in Rule 35, the conclusions of an expert, shall not be required.” This court in Sanchez v. Waldrup, 271 Minn. 419 , 136 N. W. (2d) 61 , held: “Where it is intended to use an expert witness to rebut or
State v. Gannons Inc. 145 N.W.2d 321 Minn. 1966
State v. Gannons Inc. 145 N.W.2d 321 Minn. 1966
This court held in the recent case of Sanchez v. Waldrup, 271 Minn. 419 , , that where the foundation for an opinion of an expert is unreliable, the opinion likewise is unsound, and a verdict based on it cannot stand.
State v. Gannons Inc. 145 N.W.2d 321 Minn. 1966
State v. Gannons Inc. 145 N.W.2d 321 Minn. 1966
This court held in the recent case of Sanchez v. Waldrup, 271 Minn. 419 , 136 N. W. (2d) 61 , that where the foundation for an opinion of an expert is unreliable, the opinion likewise is unsound, and a verdict based on it cannot stand.