Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Moosbrugger v. McGraw-Edison Company, 170 N.W.2d 72.

39 citing documents.

Schlieman v. Gannett Minnesota Broadcasting, Inc. 637 N.W.2d 297 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
Schlieman v. Gannett Minnesota Broadcasting, Inc. 637 N.W.2d 297 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
Moosbrugger v. McGraw-Edison Co., 284 Minn. 143, 158
ESTATE OF JONES BY BLUME v. Kvamme 430 N.W.2d 188 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
ESTATE OF JONES BY BLUME v. Kvamme 430 N.W.2d 188 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Moosbrugger v. McGraw-Edison Company, 284 Minn. 143, 158
State v. Patten 416 N.W.2d 168 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
State v. Patten 416 N.W.2d 168 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
1 In Moosbrugger v. McGraw-Edison Company, 284 Minn. 143 , the court found that complaints made in a letter relating to malfunctioning dry cleaning machines were sufficient to provide adequate notice: The contents of [Moosbrugger’s] letter ⅜ * * clearly were sufficient to put [McGraw-Edison] on notice that the machines were not working properly an
Solid Gold Realty, Inc. v. Mondry 399 N.W.2d 681 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Solid Gold Realty, Inc. v. Mondry 399 N.W.2d 681 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Even if the precise amount of Solid Gold’s commission was unknown, Mondry could have determined the amount of his potential liability by “reference to generally recognized standards such as market value * * Moosbrugger v. McGraw-Edison Co., 284 Minn. 143, 160
Alholm v. Wilt 394 N.W.2d 488 Minn. 1986
Alholm v. Wilt 394 N.W.2d 488 Minn. 1986
Even had the proffered instructions constituted a correct statement of the law, which they did not, provided the court’s instruction appropriately stated the law, reversal will not follow “simply because the litigant preferred to use other language.” Moosbruger v. McGraw-Edison Co., 284 Minn. 143, 158
Spinett, Inc. v. Peoples Natural Gas Co. 385 N.W.2d 834 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Spinett, Inc. v. Peoples Natural Gas Co. 385 N.W.2d 834 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Potter v. Hartzell Propeller, Inc., 291 Minn. 513, 518 , , 504 *841 (1971); Moosbrugger v. McGraw-Edison Co., 284 Minn. 143, 160
Gand v. Jay Bros., Inc. 367 N.W.2d 645 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Gand v. Jay Bros., Inc. 367 N.W.2d 645 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
See Moosbrugger v. McGraw-Edison Co., 284 Minn. 143, 160-61 , -83 (1969).
Sohns v. Pederson 354 N.W.2d 852 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Sohns v. Pederson 354 N.W.2d 852 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Moosebrugger v. McGraw-Edison Co., 284 Minn. 143
Alexander Construction Co. v. C & H Contracting, Inc. 354 N.W.2d 535 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Alexander Construction Co. v. C & H Contracting, Inc. 354 N.W.2d 535 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Moosbrugger v. McGraw-Edison Co., 284 Minn. 143, 160
Deutz & Crow Co., Inc. v. Anderson 354 N.W.2d 482 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Deutz & Crow Co., Inc. v. Anderson 354 N.W.2d 482 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Moosbrugger v. McGraw-Edison Co., 284 Minn. 143
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
See Moosbrugger v. McGraw-Edison Co., 284 Minn. 143 , 146 n. 1, , 75 n. 1 (1969).
Material Movers, Inc. v. Hill 316 N.W.2d 13 Minn. 1982
Material Movers, Inc. v. Hill 316 N.W.2d 13 Minn. 1982
Moosbrugger v. McGraw-Edison Co., 284 Minn. 143
Instrumentation Services, Inc. v. General Resource Corp. 283 N.W.2d 902 Minn. 1979
Instrumentation Services, Inc. v. General Resource Corp. 283 N.W.2d 902 Minn. 1979
See, Moosbrugger v. McGraw-Edison Co., 284 Minn. 143, 160
Woodrow v. Tobler 269 N.W.2d 910 Minn. 1978
Woodrow v. Tobler 269 N.W.2d 910 Minn. 1978
Poppenhagen v. Sornsin Const. Co., 300 Minn. 73, 81 , Smith v. The Kahler Corp. Inc., 297 Minn. 272 , Hovey v. Wagoner, 287 Minn. 546 , Moosbrugger v. McGraw-Edison Co., 284 Minn. 143, 158 , Stall v. Christensen, 277 Minn. 71, 75 , Hammond v. Minneapolis Street Ry.
Raach v. Haverly 269 N.W.2d 877 Minn. 1978
Raach v. Haverly 269 N.W.2d 877 Minn. 1978
That errors of law occurred at the trial and were objected to at the time, including errors in the instructions with respect to fundamental law and controlling principles;” In Moosbrugger v. McGraw-Edison Co., 284 Minn. 143, 157 , we held that “[a]n assignment of error, to be valid, must point to a specific error of law and cannot be vague and indefinite.” It is doubtful that appellants’ post-trial motion could meet that standard.
ICC Leasing Corp. v. Midwestern MacHinery Co. 257 N.W.2d 551 Minn. 1977
ICC Leasing Corp. v. Midwestern MacHinery Co. 257 N.W.2d 551 Minn. 1977
Moosbrugger v. McGraw-Edison Co., 284 Minn. 143
Bonhiver v. Graff 248 N.W.2d 291 Minn. 1976
Bonhiver v. Graff 248 N.W.2d 291 Minn. 1976
In Moosbrugger v. McGraw-Edison Co. 284 Minn. 143, 160 , we set down the general rule for the allowance of prejudgment interest as follows: *134 “The general rule in this state is to require interest in the case of a liquidated claim or a sum certain and not to allow interest in a case of an unliquidated claim because a defendant does not
Northern Petrochemical Co. v. Thorsen & Thorshov, Inc. 211 N.W.2d 159 Minn. 1973
Northern Petrochemical Co. v. Thorsen & Thorshov, Inc. 211 N.W.2d 159 Minn. 1973
Potter v. Hartzell Propeller, Inc. 291 Minn. 513 , Moosbrugger v. McGraw-Edison Co. 284 Minn. 143 , Employers Lia.
Potter v. Hartzell Propeller, Inc. 189 N.W.2d 499 Minn. 1971
Potter v. Hartzell Propeller, Inc. 189 N.W.2d 499 Minn. 1971
Moosbrugger v. McGraw-Edison Co. 284 Minn. 143 , 170 N. W. (2d) 72 ; Employers Lia.
State Ex Rel. Koalska v. Swenson 62 N.W.2d 842 Minn. 1954