Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Thielbar v. Juenke, 189 N.W.2d 493.

25 citing documents.

  • All-American Ice L.L.C., d/b/a All-American Arena Products, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
    Co., -10 (Minn. App. 1986) (holding that when a party fails to object to jury instructions until its motion for a new trial or request a jury instruction of its own, it forfeits its right to a jury trial of those questions), aff’d (stating that failure to object to a special-verdict form prior to submission to the jury constitutes a forfeiture of any objection which a party may have).
  • A19-1654 Minn. Ct. App. 2020
    17, 1999); see also, e.g. , Thielbar v. J uenke, (concluding that failure to object to special verdict constitutes waiver of any objection a party may have to verdict form); (holding that, by failing to propose addi tional questions for submission, party waived right to jury trial on issues no
  • Bay Side Recycling Company LLC, et al., Appellants, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
    Nonetheless, special-verdict questions “need not be questions of pure fact, but, in the discretion of the trial court, may be in the form of ultimate 8 fact questions.” Hill v. Okay Const. Co. , ( citing Thielbar v. Juenke , ).
  • Daly v. McFarland 812 N.W.2d 113 Minn. 2012
  • Daly v. McFarland 812 N.W.2d 113 Minn. 2012
    Judge’s Ass’n, Minnesota Practice-Jury Instruction Guides, Civil, CIVJIG 25.16 (5th ed.2006) (noting that the emergency rule only applies to those perils not caused by the party requesting the instruction); see also Thielbar v. Juenke, 291 Minn. 129, 134
  • Kaiser-Bauer v. Mullan 609 N.W.2d 905 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
  • Kaiser-Bauer v. Mullan 609 N.W.2d 905 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
    P. 49; Thielbar v, Juenke, 291 Minn. 129, 136 , (suggesting failure to object to form of special verdict constitutes waiver of any objection party may have to form of verdict); Larson v. Degner, 248 Minn. 59, 65-66 , (holding that, by failing to propose additional questions for submission, party waived rig
  • Domtar, Inc. v. Niagara Fire Insurance Co. 563 N.W.2d 724 Minn. 1997
  • Domtar, Inc. v. Niagara Fire Insurance Co. 563 N.W.2d 724 Minn. 1997
    Co., 312 Minn. 324, 340 , see also Thielbar v. Ju&nke, 291 Minn. 129, 136
  • Covey v. Detroit Lakes Printing Co. 490 N.W.2d 138 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
  • Covey v. Detroit Lakes Printing Co. 490 N.W.2d 138 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
    See Thielbar v. Juenke, 291 Minn. 129, 137
  • Kath v. Burlington Northern Railroad 441 N.W.2d 569 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
  • Kath v. Burlington Northern Railroad 441 N.W.2d 569 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
    Thielbar v. Juenke, 291 Minn. 129, 137
  • Estate of Hartz v. Nelson 437 N.W.2d 749 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
  • Estate of Hartz v. Nelson 437 N.W.2d 749 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
    Thielbar v. Juenke, 291 Minn. 129, 137
  • Krein v. Raudabough 406 N.W.2d 315 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
  • Krein v. Raudabough 406 N.W.2d 315 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
    Thielbar v. Juenke, 291 Minn. 129, 137
  • Gravley v. Sea Gull Marine, Inc. 269 N.W.2d 896 Minn. 1978
  • Gravley v. Sea Gull Marine, Inc. 269 N.W.2d 896 Minn. 1978
    Thielbar v. Juenke, 291 Minn. 129
  • Hill v. Okay Const. Co., Inc. 252 N.W.2d 107 Minn. 1977
  • Hill v. Okay Const. Co., Inc. 252 N.W.2d 107 Minn. 1977
    Thielbar v. Juenke, 291 Minn. 129, 136 , citing McDonnell v. Timmerman, 269 F. 2d 54 (8 Cir. 1959); 2 Hetland & Adamson, Minnesota Practice, Civil Rules Ann. p. 289.
  • Martineau v. Nelson 247 N.W.2d 409 Minn. 1976
  • Martineau v. Nelson 247 N.W.2d 409 Minn. 1976
    While counsel for the defendant is correct in his statement that such an error is waived if not objected to in the trial court, see Thielbar v. Juenke, 291 Minn. 129 , Raymond v. Baehr, 289 Minn. 24 , counsel in this case did object generally to the submission of the *105 contributory negligence of both plaintiffs.
  • Holten v. Parker 224 N.W.2d 139 Minn. 1974
  • Holten v. Parker 224 N.W.2d 139 Minn. 1974
    Thielbar v. Juenke, 291 Minn. 129