Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Lindstrom v. Yellow Taxi Company of Minneapolis, 214 N.W.2d 672.

92 citing documents.

Western National Mutual Insurance Company, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Lindstrom v. Yellow Taxi Co. of Minneapolis, 298 Minn. 224, 229, d 672, 676 (1974).
Asset Marketing Services, LLC, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
“Errors [in a jury instruction] are likely to be considered fundamental or controlling if they destroy the substantial correctness of the charge as a whole, cause a miscarriage of justice, or result in substantial prejudice.” 5 Lindstrom v. Yellow Taxi Co. of Minneapolis , 298 Minn. 224, 229, (quotation and citations omitted).
Domagala v. Rolland 805 N.W.2d 14 Minn. 2011
Domagala v. Rolland 805 N.W.2d 14 Minn. 2011
When jury instructions “are misleading and conflicting on a material issue, a new trial should ordinarily be granted unless the error is cured.” Lindstrom v. Yellow Taxi Co. of Minneapolis, 298 Minn. 224, 229
Willis v. Indiana Harbor Steamship Co. 790 N.W.2d 177 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
Willis v. Indiana Harbor Steamship Co. 790 N.W.2d 177 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
Lindstrom v. Yellow Taxi Co. of Minneapolis, 298 Minn. 224, 229
Frazier v. Burlington Northern Santa Fe Corp. 788 N.W.2d 770 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
Frazier v. Burlington Northern Santa Fe Corp. 788 N.W.2d 770 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
But “the duty or degree of care imposed on a party is fundamental law and objections to instructions relative thereto [can] be assigned for the first time in a motion for a new trial.” Lindstrom v. Yellow Taxi Co., 298 Minn. 224, 228 , see also Lewis v. Equitable Life Assurance Soc’y, (“Fundamental errors of law in jury instructions are reviewable on appeal so long as they have been assigned as errors in the motion for new trial.”).
Moorhead Economic Development Authority v. Anda 789 N.W.2d 860 Minn. 2010
Moorhead Economic Development Authority v. Anda 789 N.W.2d 860 Minn. 2010
A jury-instruction error is fundamental and warrants a new trial if it “destroy[s] the substantial correctness of the charge as a whole, causes a miscarriage of justice, or result[s] in substantial prejudice.” Lindstrom v. Yellow Taxi Co. *892 of Minneapolis, 298 Minn. 224, 229
DOMAGALA v. Rolland 787 N.W.2d 662 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
DOMAGALA v. Rolland 787 N.W.2d 662 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
Co., (citing Lindstrom v. Yellow Taxi Co., 298 Minn. 224, 229 , ).
St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance Co. v. A.P.I., Inc. 738 N.W.2d 401 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance Co. v. A.P.I., Inc. 738 N.W.2d 401 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
1 Lindstrom v. Yellow Taxi Co., 298 Minn. 224, 229
George v. Estate of Baker 724 N.W.2d 1 Minn. 2006
George v. Estate of Baker 724 N.W.2d 1 Minn. 2006
George, 2005 WL 3289451 , at *4; see Lindstrom v. Yellow Taxi Co., 298 Minn. 224, 226 , -75 (1974); McKellar v. *10 Yellow Cab Co., 148 Minn. 247, 249 , 181 N.W.
Youngquist v. WESTERN NAT. MUT. INS. CO. 716 N.W.2d 383 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
Youngquist v. WESTERN NAT. MUT. INS. CO. 716 N.W.2d 383 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
Lindstrom v. Yellow Taxi Co., 298 Minn. 224, 229
Heine v. Simon 674 N.W.2d 411 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
Heine v. Simon 674 N.W.2d 411 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
Lindstrom v. Yellow Taxi Co. of Minneapolis, 298 Minn. 224, 229
In Re the Child of Simon 662 N.W.2d 155 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
In Re the Child of Simon 662 N.W.2d 155 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
803(6); see Brown, 241 Minn, at 26, d at 696 (concluding that properly identified hospital records admissible to prove matters related to patient’s hospitalization and treatment but hearsay and self-serving statements contained in records not admissible to prove how injury occurred); see also Lindstrom v. Yellow Taxi Co., 298 Minn. 224, 232-33 , -79 (1974) (concluding that hospital records admissible).
Peterson v. BASF Corp. 657 N.W.2d 853 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
Peterson v. BASF Corp. 657 N.W.2d 853 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
Lindstrom v. Yellow Taxi Co. of Minneapolis, 298 Minn. 224, 229
Morlock v. St. Paul Guardian Insurance Co. 650 N.W.2d 154 Minn. 2002
Morlock v. St. Paul Guardian Insurance Co. 650 N.W.2d 154 Minn. 2002
Lindstrom v. Yellow Taxi Co. of Minneapolis, 298 Minn. 224, 229
Hilligoss v. Cargill, Inc. 649 N.W.2d 142 Minn. 2002
Hilligoss v. Cargill, Inc. 649 N.W.2d 142 Minn. 2002
An instruction that is so misleading that it renders incorrect the instruction as a whole will be reversible error, but “a jury instruction may not be attacked successfully by lifting a single sentence or word from its context.” Lindstrom v. Yellow Taxi Co., 298 Minn. 224, 229
Schlieman v. Gannett Minnesota Broadcasting, Inc. 637 N.W.2d 297 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
Schlieman v. Gannett Minnesota Broadcasting, Inc. 637 N.W.2d 297 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
Lindstrom v. Yellow Taxi Co., 298 Minn. 224, 229
Morlock v. St. Paul Guardian Insurance Co. 632 N.W.2d 268 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
Morlock v. St. Paul Guardian Insurance Co. 632 N.W.2d 268 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
Lindstrom v. Yellow Taxi Co., 298 Minn. 224, 229
Blatz v. Allina Health System 622 N.W.2d 376 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
Blatz v. Allina Health System 622 N.W.2d 376 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
Lindstrom v. Yellow Taxi Co., 298 Minn. 224, 229
Kissoondath v. United States Fire Insurance Co. 620 N.W.2d 909 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
Kissoondath v. United States Fire Insurance Co. 620 N.W.2d 909 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
See Lindstrom v. Yellow Taxi Co., 298 Minn. 224, 229 , (citations omitted) (error in instructing jury warrants new trial if it “ ‘destroy[s] the substantial correctness of the charge as a wthole,’ cause[s] a miscar *916 riage of justice, or result[s] in substantial prejudice.”); Cloverdale Foods of Minn.
Gopher Oil Co. v. American Hardware Mutual Insurance Co. 588 N.W.2d 756 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
Gopher Oil Co. v. American Hardware Mutual Insurance Co. 588 N.W.2d 756 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
Lindstrom v. Yellow Taxi Co., 298 Minn. 224, 229
Kroning v. State Farm Automobile Insurance Co. 567 N.W.2d 42 Minn. 1997
Kroning v. State Farm Automobile Insurance Co. 567 N.W.2d 42 Minn. 1997
Lindstrom v. Yellow Taxi Co., 298 Minn. 224, 229
Kirsebom v. Connelly 486 N.W.2d 172 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
Kirsebom v. Connelly 486 N.W.2d 172 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
See Lindstrom v. Yellow Taxi Co., 298 Minn. 224, 229
Bauer v. Markovich 484 N.W.2d 437 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
Bauer v. Markovich 484 N.W.2d 437 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
Lindstrom v. Yellow Taxi Co., 298 Minn. 224, 229
Reider v. City of Spring Lake Park 480 N.W.2d 662 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
Reider v. City of Spring Lake Park 480 N.W.2d 662 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
Lindstrom v. Yellow Taxi Cab of Minneapolis, 298 Minn. 224, 230
Apache Plaza, Ltd. v. Midwest Savings Ass'n 456 N.W.2d 729 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
Apache Plaza, Ltd. v. Midwest Savings Ass'n 456 N.W.2d 729 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
See Lindstrom v. Yellow Taxi Co. of Minneapolis, 298 Minn. 224, 230
Halla Nursery, Inc. v. Baumann-Furrie & Co. 454 N.W.2d 905 Minn. 1990
Halla Nursery, Inc. v. Baumann-Furrie & Co. 454 N.W.2d 905 Minn. 1990
Lindstrom v. Yellow Taxi Co. of Minneapolis, 298 Minn. 224, 230 , (quotation omitted).