DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Anderson v. Florence, 181 N.W.2d 873.

31 citing documents.

  • Michael Thomas Palke, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
    Anderson v. Florence , ( holding that trial court could compel defendant, when qual ified as expert witness, to answer cross- examination questions calling for expert opinion); -31 (Minn. App. 1987) (declining to answer question whether party may use subpoena to compel unwilling non-pa
  • State v. Underdahl 749 N.W.2d 117 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
  • State v. Underdahl 749 N.W.2d 117 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
    (quoting Anderson v. Florence, 288 Minn. 351, 357 , ).
  • State v. Deal 740 N.W.2d 755 Minn. 2007
  • State v. Deal 740 N.W.2d 755 Minn. 2007
    As a result, “any limitation on the scope of discovery en-grafted on discovery procedures by interpretation must rest on sound policy grounds.” Anderson v. Florence, 288 Minn. 351, 357 , (emphasis added).
  • Underdahl v. Commissioner of Public Safety 735 N.W.2d 706 Minn. 2007
  • Underdahl v. Commissioner of Public Safety 735 N.W.2d 706 Minn. 2007
    “[Discovery rules are remedial and must be construed liberally.” Anderson v. Florence, 288 Minn. 351, 361
  • Clark v. Monnens 436 N.W.2d 830 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
  • Clark v. Monnens 436 N.W.2d 830 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
    See Anderson v. Florence, 288 Minn. 351, 351-52 , (discretionary review granted where order presented “one of the most difficult problems encountered” in pre-trial discovery practice).
  • In Re Rice Lake Auto, Inc. 430 N.W.2d 881 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
  • In Re Rice Lake Auto, Inc. 430 N.W.2d 881 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
    (prohibition is appropriate remedy where trial court orders disclosure of information which is clearly not discoverable); see also Anderson v. Florence, 288 Minn. 351, 351-52 , (discretionary review granted for pretrial discovery via interrogatories of defense medical expert opinions).
  • Knecht Bros. v. Ames Construction, Inc. 404 N.W.2d 859 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
  • Knecht Bros. v. Ames Construction, Inc. 404 N.W.2d 859 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
    Ericksen v. Wilson, 266 Minn. 401, 406 , overruled on other grounds in Anderson v. Florence, 288 Minn. 351
  • Bush v. Winter 402 N.W.2d 229 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
  • Bush v. Winter 402 N.W.2d 229 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
    In Anderson v. Florence, 288 Minn. 351 , a medical malpractice action, the supreme court held that a trial court could compel a defendant physician, when qualified as an expert witness, to answer questions calling for his expert medical opinion.
  • Bauer v. Friedland 394 N.W.2d 549 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
  • Bauer v. Friedland 394 N.W.2d 549 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
    In Anderson v. Florence, 288 Minn. 351 , the Minnesota Supreme Court overturned previous decisions and ruled that during pretrial discovery it is not unfair to allow an opposing party in a malpractice case to elicit the defendant doctor’s expert opinion.
  • Adams v. Nystrom 373 N.W.2d 666 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
  • Adams v. Nystrom 373 N.W.2d 666 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
    Appellants correctly state that a defendant’s expert can be used to establish malpractice, citing Anderson v. Florence, 288 Minn. 351 , *668 (1970).
  • Reinhardt v. Colton 337 N.W.2d 88 Minn. 1983
  • Reinhardt v. Colton 337 N.W.2d 88 Minn. 1983
    See, e.g., Anderson v. Florence, 288 Minn. 351, 360-61
  • Leer v. Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul & Pacific Railway Co. 308 N.W.2d 305 Minn. 1981
  • Leer v. Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul & Pacific Railway Co. 308 N.W.2d 305 Minn. 1981
    Anderson v. Florence, 288 Minn. 351, 362
  • Smith v. Knowles 281 N.W.2d 653 Minn. 1979
  • Smith v. Knowles 281 N.W.2d 653 Minn. 1979
    Larson v. Belzer Clinic, 292 Minn. 301 , Anderson v. Florence, 288 Minn. 351
  • Cornfeldt v. Tongen 262 N.W.2d 684 Minn. 1977
  • Cornfeldt v. Tongen 262 N.W.2d 684 Minn. 1977
    In Anderson v. Florence, 288 Minn. 351 , and Larson v. Belzer Clinic, 292 Minn. 301 , this court established that a defendant as an adverse witness cannot refrain from giving an expert opinion as to whether his conduct conformed to accepted medical practice.
  • Utica Mutual Insurance v. Emmco Insurance 243 N.W.2d 134 Minn. 1976
  • Utica Mutual Insurance v. Emmco Insurance 243 N.W.2d 134 Minn. 1976
    See, Anderson v. Florence, 288 Minn. 351 , reversing Ericksen v. Wilson, 266 Minn. 401 , and Hoffman v. Naslund, 274 Minn. 521
  • Larson v. Belzer Clinic 195 N.W.2d 416 Minn. 1972
  • Larson v. Belzer Clinic 195 N.W.2d 416 Minn. 1972
    That decision, favorable to plaintiffs’ contention, was released on October 23, 1970, Anderson v. Florence, 288 Minn. 351 , .