DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Explore

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Olberg v. Minneapolis Gas Company, 191 N.W.2d 418.

62 citing documents.

  • State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
    It would be totally unrealistic to expect a juror, while out of the jury room, to purge his consciousness of any and all reflections upon the trial at hand.”
  • State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
  • State of Minnesota, Minn. 2023
    For example, –23 (Minn. 1971), we reversed an order granting a new trial because the juror’s “conscious observation of the width of the headlight beams while on a journey incident to the juror’s ordinary affairs” did not require a new 14 trial.2 (Emphasis added.)
  • St. Louis County Gildea, C.J. Tyrone James White, Appellant, vs. Minn. 2023
    See Schwartz, d at 303; (“Many cases may arise wh ere there is utterly no suspicion of jury misconduct.
  • ORDER PROMULGATING AMENDMENTS TO THE MINNESOTA RULES OF EVIDENCE. Minn. 2016
  • ORDER PROMULGATING AMENDMENTS TO THE MINNESOTA RULES OF EVIDENCE. Minn. 2016
    Compare Olberg v. Minneapolis Gas Co., 291 Minn. 334, 340, 191 N W2d 418, 422 (1971) in which the Court stated that evidence of a juror's general "bias, motives, or beliefs should not be considered" with State v. Hayden Miller Co ..
  • 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
    808(b); see also Olberg v. Minneapolis Gas Co., 291 Minn. 334, 342, (“A trial court is not justified in ordering a new trial simply because a peremptory challenge might have been exercised had the attorney elicited certain information on the voir dire examination.”) Moreover, appellants have done no more than speculate that the alleged misconduct c
  • State v. Evans 756 N.W.2d 854 Minn. 2008
  • State v. Evans 756 N.W.2d 854 Minn. 2008
    Evans argues that Schwartz forbids attorneys to initiate communication with jurors in relation to a Schwartz hearing, citing Olberg v. Minneapolis Gas Co., 291 Minn. 334
  • Gibson v. State 569 N.W.2d 421 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
  • Gibson v. State 569 N.W.2d 421 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
    Co., -63 (Minn.1977) (citing Olberg v. Minneapolis Gas Co., 291 Minn. 334, 343 , ).
  • State v. Hicks 432 N.W.2d 487 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
  • State v. Hicks 432 N.W.2d 487 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
    See Olberg v. Minneapolis Gas Co., 291 Minn. 334, 340
  • State v. Rainer 411 N.W.2d 490 Minn. 1987
  • State v. Rainer 411 N.W.2d 490 Minn. 1987
    The trial court should be liberal in granting a hearing, Olberg v. Minneapolis Gas Co., 291 Minn. 334, 343 , but before a hearing is mandated the defendant must submit sufficient evidence which if unchallenged would warrant the conclusion of jury misconduct.
  • Bianchi v. Nordby 409 N.W.2d 835 Minn. 1987
  • Bianchi v. Nordby 409 N.W.2d 835 Minn. 1987
    We have stated that “trial courts should use their discretion and good judgment to prevent the necessity of such actions [interrogating a juror or telephoning him for the purpose of gathering evidence for a request for a Schwartz hearing] and should be liberal in granting a hearing.” Olberg v. Minneapolis Gas Co., 291 Minn. 334, 343 , -25 (1971).
  • State v. Butzin 404 N.W.2d 819 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
  • State v. Butzin 404 N.W.2d 819 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
    The court cited Olberg v. Minneapolis Gas Co., 291 Minn. 334 , in which the court stated: [i]t would be totally unrealistic to expect a juror * * * to purge his consciousness of any and all reflections upon the trial at hand — an event which to him is an extraordinary and rare occasion.
  • State v. Benedict 397 N.W.2d 337 Minn. 1986
  • State v. Benedict 397 N.W.2d 337 Minn. 1986
    Olberg v. Minneapolis Gas Co., 291 Minn. 334, 343
  • State v. Benedict 393 N.W.2d 36 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
  • State v. Benedict 393 N.W.2d 36 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
    If the motion is granted the jurors shall be interrogated under oath and their testimony recorded.” The Minnesota Supreme Court in Olberg v. Minneapolis Gas Co., 291 Minn. 334, 343 , -25 (1971) stated that “the trial courts * * * should be liberal in granting a [Schwartz ] hearing.” Quinn v. Winkel’s Inc.
  • Lundgren v. Fultz 385 N.W.2d 378 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
  • Lundgren v. Fultz 385 N.W.2d 378 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
    Olberg v. Minneapolis Gas Co., 291 Minn. 334, 340
  • Arney v. Helbig 383 N.W.2d 4 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
  • Arney v. Helbig 383 N.W.2d 4 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
    See Zimmerman, ; Patterson v. Donahue, 291 Minn. 285 , Olberg v. Minneapolis Gas Co., 291 Minn. 334 , Schwartz v. Minneapolis Suburban Bus Co., 258 Minn. 325
  • State v. Buchmann 380 N.W.2d 879 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
  • State v. Buchmann 380 N.W.2d 879 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
    Olberg v. Minneapolis Gas Co., 291 Minn. 334, 340
  • State v. Banks 379 N.W.2d 168 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
  • State v. Banks 379 N.W.2d 168 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
    1 “The time that a verdict loser should approach the court to request a Schwartz hearing should be when the first suspicion of misconduct arises.” Olberg v. Minneapolis Gas Company, 291 Minn. 334, 343
  • State v. Anderson 379 N.W.2d 70 Minn. 1985
  • State v. Anderson 379 N.W.2d 70 Minn. 1985
    Olberg v. Minneapolis Gas Co., 291 Minn. 334, 343 , -25 (1971).
  • State v. Rachuy 349 N.W.2d 824 Minn. 1984
  • State v. Rachuy 349 N.W.2d 824 Minn. 1984
    Olberg v. Minneapolis Gas Co., 291 Minn. 334, 343
  • Gersdorf v. RD Werner Co., Inc. 316 N.W.2d 517 Minn. 1982
  • Gersdorf v. RD Werner Co., Inc. 316 N.W.2d 517 Minn. 1982
    See Olberg v. Minneapolis Gas Co., 291 Minn. 334
  • State v. Stofflet 281 N.W.2d 494 Minn. 1979
  • State v. Stofflet 281 N.W.2d 494 Minn. 1979
    Olberg v. Minneapolis Gas Co., 291 Minn. 334, 343
  • State v. Larson 281 N.W.2d 481 Minn. 1979
  • State v. Larson 281 N.W.2d 481 Minn. 1979
    Its purpose is to avoid harassment of jurors and to provide a record on appeal in cases where, after the jury renders the verdict, the losing party becomes aware of facts which indicate the possibility of jury misconduct.” In Olberg v. Minneapolis Gas Co., 291 Minn. 334, 343 , we further clarified that “[n]othing should prevent the trial court from ordering a Schwartz hearing on the grounds of an oral assertion by counsel or hearsay affidavit” and “[t]he trial courts * * * should be liberal in g
  • Quinn v. Winkel's, Inc. 279 N.W.2d 65 Minn. 1979
  • Quinn v. Winkel's, Inc. 279 N.W.2d 65 Minn. 1979
    See Schwartz, supra; Olberg v. Minneapolis Gas Co., 291 Minn. 334
  • Zimmerman Ex Rel. Zimmerman v. Witte Transportation Co. 259 N.W.2d 260 Minn. 1977
  • Zimmerman Ex Rel. Zimmerman v. Witte Transportation Co. 259 N.W.2d 260 Minn. 1977
    Olberg v. Minneapolis Gas Co., 291 Minn. 334, 343
  • Baker v. Gile 257 N.W.2d 376 Minn. 1977
  • Baker v. Gile 257 N.W.2d 376 Minn. 1977
    In 1971, this court reiterated the rule in Olberg v. Minneapolis Gas Co., 291 Minn. 334, 343 , wherein we said: “The time that a verdict loser should approach the court to request a Schwartz hearing should be when the first suspicion of misconduct arises.
  • Ossenfort Ex Rel. Ossenfort v. Associated Milk Producers, Inc. 254 N.W.2d 672 Minn. 1977
  • Ossenfort Ex Rel. Ossenfort v. Associated Milk Producers, Inc. 254 N.W.2d 672 Minn. 1977
    On June 24, 1975, after the jury returned its verdict, the court conducted a Schwartz hearing (Schwartz v. Minneapolis Suburban Bus Co., 258 Minn. 325 , [1960]; Olberg v. Minneapolis Gas Co., 291 Minn. 334 , [1971]) to determine the extent of the jurors’ knowledge of this news and the effect of such knowledge upon their verdict.