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 v. American Arena, L.L.C. 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).
Gerald L. Trooien v. Talon OP, L.P., et al 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 v. SKB Environmental Inc., Gem-Ash Processing LLC, et al 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