Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Lemieux v. Bishop, 209 N.W.2d 379.

22 citing documents.

State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
Mark Kedrowski, Minn. 2019
“[A]lleged deficiencies in [an expert’s] factual basis go m ore to the weight of the expert’s opinion than to its admissibility .” Bohach v. Thompson , see also LeMieux v. Bishop , (“[A]ny error in calculations or in the assumption of facts or data upon which the opinion was based goes to the weight of the testimony, not to its admissibility.”).
Mark Kedrowski, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Co., –25 (Minn. 2000); Shymanski v. Nash, 312 Minn. 304, 308, LeMieux v. Bishop, 296 Minn. 372, 384, see also In re Zurn Pex Plumbing Prods .
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
In support of that reasoning, we cited Lemiuex v. Bishop, 296 Minn. 372, d 379 (1973), in which the supreme court recognized that the estimation of “the speed of an automobile lies in a field in which a lay person gifted with reasonable intelligence, given a fair opportunity to observe, and having ordinary experience with moving vehicles may give 5 opinion testimony.” Ali
State v. Ali 679 N.W.2d 359 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
State v. Ali 679 N.W.2d 359 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
In Lemieux v. Bishop, 296 Minn. 372, 378 , the supreme court recognized that the estimation of “the speed of an automobile lies in a field in which a lay person gifted with reasonable intelligence, given a fair opportunity to observe, and having ordinary experience with moving vehicles may give opinion testimony.” Beyond havi
200 Levee Drive Ass'n v. County of Scott 532 N.W.2d 574 Minn. 1995
200 Levee Drive Ass'n v. County of Scott 532 N.W.2d 574 Minn. 1995
LeMieux v. Bishop, 296 Minn. 372 , (citing Albertson v. Albertson, 243 Minn. 212, 217 , ).
Behlke v. Conwed Corp. 474 N.W.2d 351 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
Behlke v. Conwed Corp. 474 N.W.2d 351 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
LeMieux v. Bishop, 296 Minn. 372, 378 , (footnotes omitted).
State v. Schaffer 378 N.W.2d 115 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
State v. Schaffer 378 N.W.2d 115 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
See, e.g., LeMieux v. Bishop, 296 Minn. 372 , Grapentin v. Harvey, 262 Minn. 222
Sorensen v. Maski 361 N.W.2d 498 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Sorensen v. Maski 361 N.W.2d 498 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
See LeMieux v. Bishop, 296 Minn. 372, 378
State v. Dewey 272 N.W.2d 355 Minn. 1978
State v. Dewey 272 N.W.2d 355 Minn. 1978
See, e. g., LeMieux v. Bishop, 296 Minn. 372 , Grapentin v. Harvey, 262 Minn. 222
Busch v. Busch Construction, Inc. 262 N.W.2d 377 Minn. 1977
Busch v. Busch Construction, Inc. 262 N.W.2d 377 Minn. 1977
LeMieux v. Bishop, 296 Minn. 372, 378 , Dunshee v. Douglas, Minn.
Dunshee v. Douglas 255 N.W.2d 42 Minn. 1977
Dunshee v. Douglas 255 N.W.2d 42 Minn. 1977
LeMieux v. Bishop, 296 Minn. 372
Bohach v. Thompson 239 N.W.2d 764 Minn. 1976
Bohach v. Thompson 239 N.W.2d 764 Minn. 1976
Although an estimate of automobile speed is generally viewed as a subject on which a lay person “gifted with reasonable intelligence, given a fair opportunity to observe, and having ordinary experience with moving vehicles may give opinion testimony,” LeMieux v. Bishop, 296 Minn. 372, 378 , it has also been held by this court to be a subject on which, under proper circumstances, expert testimony may be elicited.