DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Swanson Ex Rel. Swanson v. Chatterton, 160 N.W.2d 662.

44 citing documents.

  • Jolene Luczak v. St. Mary's Medical Center Minn. Ct. App. 2024
  • Jolene Luczak v. St. Mary's Medical Center Minn. Ct. App. 2024
    Rather, “it is a practical knowledge of what is usually and customarily done by 8 physicians under circumstances similar to those which confronted the defendant charged with malpractice that is of controlling importance.” ().
  • Mario A. Ruiz, et al., Appellants, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
    12, 1996) ; Swanson v. Chatterton , (upholding district court’s exclusion of internist’s testimony on standard of care of orthopedic surgeon treating arm fracture because internist lacked “substantial experience or expertise in the direct care of orthopedic patients”).
  • Patricia J. Marquardt, Minn. 2020
    to support an affirmance.
  • Patricia J. Marquardt, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
  • Gary Cyril Jenco v. Paul James Crowe, M.D., John Y. Hendricks, M.D., North Memorial Health Care, d/b/a North … Minn. Ct. App. 2015
  • Gary Cyril Jenco v. Paul James Crowe, M.D., John Y. Hendricks, M.D., North Memorial Health Care, d/b/a North … Minn. Ct. App. 2015
    or without specialization in field of pediatric oncology or experience with bone-marrow transplants was not qualified to testify as to standard of care for treating bone-marrow transplant patient); 694 (Minn. 1997) (affirming exclusion of testimony of gastroenterologist and pathologist about the actions of an anesthesiologist); Swanson v. Chatterton, 281 Minn. 129, 136, 140, 669 (1968) (holding that district court did not abuse its discretion in excluding testimony by internist regarding standar
  • Noske v. Friedberg 713 N.W.2d 866 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
  • Noske v. Friedberg 713 N.W.2d 866 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
    particular field of inquiry.” Swanson v. Chatterton, 281 Minn. 129, 140 , (medical malpractice action).
  • Teffeteller v. University of Minnesota 645 N.W.2d 420 Minn. 2002
  • Teffeteller v. University of Minnesota 645 N.W.2d 420 Minn. 2002
    (indicating that in order for a medical witness to be competent to testify as an expert, the witness must have both sufficient scientific knowledge of and practical experience with the subject matter of the offered testimony); Swanson v. Ckat-terton, 281 Minn. 129,140 , (noting that notwithstanding other impressive credentials, an expert witness in a malpractice case must make a substantial showing of qualification in the particular area necessary to support the claims at issue in the suit).
  • Ouellette Ex Rel. Ouellette v. Subak 391 N.W.2d 810 Minn. 1986
  • Ouellette Ex Rel. Ouellette v. Subak 391 N.W.2d 810 Minn. 1986
    See, Swanson v. Chatterton, 281 Minn. 129
  • Lundgren v. Eustermann 370 N.W.2d 877 Minn. 1985
  • Lundgren v. Eustermann 370 N.W.2d 877 Minn. 1985
    Swanson v. Chatterton, 281 Minn. 129, 134
  • Lundgren v. Eustermann 356 N.W.2d 762 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
  • Lundgren v. Eustermann 356 N.W.2d 762 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
    The Cornfeldt court went on to quote from Swanson v. Chatterton, 281 Minn. 129, 138 , which, in turn, quoted from Pearce v. Linde, 113 Cal.App.2d 627, 629 , 248 P.2d 506, 508 (1952), that [t]he definitive criteria in guidance of the trial court’s determination of the qualifications of an expert witness are recognized * * * to rest primarily on ‘occupational experience
  • McCormack v. Lindberg 352 N.W.2d 30 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
  • McCormack v. Lindberg 352 N.W.2d 30 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
    The Cornfeldt court went on to quote from Swanson v. Chatterton, 281 Minn. 129, 136 , which, in turn, quoted from Pearce v. Linde, 113 Cal.App.2d 627, 629 , 248 P.2d 506, 508 (1952), that the definitive criteria in guidance of the trial court’s determination of the qualifications of an expert witness are recognized ...
  • Reinhardt v. Colton 337 N.W.2d 88 Minn. 1983
  • Reinhardt v. Colton 337 N.W.2d 88 Minn. 1983
    See also Swanson v. Chatterton, 281 Minn. 129, 136-38 , -68 (1968).
  • Plutshack Ex Rel. Plutshack v. University of Minnesota Hospitals 316 N.W.2d 1 Minn. 1982
  • Plutshack Ex Rel. Plutshack v. University of Minnesota Hospitals 316 N.W.2d 1 Minn. 1982
    The standard of care recognized by the medical community has been defined as the “standard of skill and learning ordinarily possessed and exercised under similar circumstances by physicians in good standing in the same or similar localities.” Swanson v. Chatterton, 281 Minn. 129, 134 , (footnote omitted).
  • Gaston v. Hunter 588 P.2d 326 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1978
  • Cornfeldt v. Tongen 262 N.W.2d 684 Minn. 1977
  • Cornfeldt v. Tongen 262 N.W.2d 684 Minn. 1977
    Todd v. Eitel Hospital, 306 Minn. 254, 257 , Swanson v. Chatterton, 281 Minn. 129, 134
  • Todd v. Eitel Hospital 237 N.W.2d 357 Minn. 1975
  • Todd v. Eitel Hospital 237 N.W.2d 357 Minn. 1975
    Swanson v. Chatterton, 281 Minn. 129 , Silver v. Redleaf, 292 Minn. 463
  • City of Eveleth v. Ruble 225 N.W.2d 521 Minn. 1974
  • City of Eveleth v. Ruble 225 N.W.2d 521 Minn. 1974
    For discussions of professional negligence in other fields, see, e.g., Gammel v. Ernst & Ernst, supra (accountants); Harris v. Wood, 214 Minn. 492 , (dentist); Swanson v. Chatterton, 281 Minn. 129 , Schulz v. Feigal, 273 Minn. 470 , Jensen v. Linner, 260 Minn. 22 , Manion v. Tweedy, 257 Minn. 59 , Yates 7.
  • Hestbeck v. Hennepin County 212 N.W.2d 361 Minn. 1973
  • Hestbeck v. Hennepin County 212 N.W.2d 361 Minn. 1973
    Swanson v. Chatterton, 281 Minn. 129 , Fowler v. Scheldrup, 166 Minn. 164 , Jensen v. Linner, 260 Minn. 22
  • State v. Dickson 209 N.W.2d 785 Minn. 1973
  • State v. Dickson 209 N.W.2d 785 Minn. 1973
    The sufficiency of the foundation to qualify a witness as an expert, as we said in Swanson v. Chatterton, 281 Minn. 129, 136 , is “primarily a question for the determination of the trial court, which we will reverse only if it is clearly wrong.” We conclude that the trial court was not clearly wrong and, in any event, the excluded evidence was without prejudice under the circumstances.
  • Kastner v. Wermerskirschen 205 N.W.2d 336 Minn. 1973
  • Kastner v. Wermerskirschen 205 N.W.2d 336 Minn. 1973
    Swanson v. Chatterton, 281 Minn. 129
  • Lieder v. Maus 203 N.W.2d 393 Minn. 1973
  • Lieder v. Maus 203 N.W.2d 393 Minn. 1973
    In Swanson v. Chatterton, 281 Minn. 129 , we upheld the exclusion of the testimony of a medical expert offered by plaintiff on the ground that the offered medical expert did primarily administrative work as chief of the medical staff of the Veterans Administration Hospital; that he had little or no experience in the treatment of the
  • Silver v. Redleaf 194 N.W.2d 271 Minn. 1972
  • Silver v. Redleaf 194 N.W.2d 271 Minn. 1972
    Yates v. Gamble, 198 Minn. 7, 12 , Berkholz v. Benepe, 153 Minn. 335, 337 , Moeller v. Hauser, 237 Minn. 368, 376 , Manion v. Tweedy, 257 Minn. 59, 70 , Hoffman v. Naslund, 274 Minn. 521, 531 , Swanson v. Chatterton, 281 Minn. 129, 134
  • Mulder v. Parke Davis & Company 181 N.W.2d 882 Minn. 1970
  • Mulder v. Parke Davis & Company 181 N.W.2d 882 Minn. 1970
    Swanson v. Chatterton, 281 Minn. 129, 136 , 160 N. W. (2d) 662, 667 .
  • Christy v. Saliterman 179 N.W.2d 288 Minn. 1970
  • Christy v. Saliterman 179 N.W.2d 288 Minn. 1970
    Swanson v. Chatterton, 281 Minn. 129 , 160 N. W. (2d) 662 .