Cited by

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

92 citing documents.

Paulson v. Lapa, Inc. 450 N.W.2d 374 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
Paulson v. Lapa, Inc. 450 N.W.2d 374 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
Lindstrom v. Yellow Taxi Company of Minneapolis, 298 Minn. 224, 230
State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. v. Short 448 N.W.2d 560 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. v. Short 448 N.W.2d 560 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
Lindstrom v. Yellow Taxi Co., 298 Minn. 224, 230
Halla Nursery, Inc. v. Baumann-Furrie & Co. 438 N.W.2d 400 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Halla Nursery, Inc. v. Baumann-Furrie & Co. 438 N.W.2d 400 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Motion for New Trial “The granting of a motion for a new trial on the ground of erroneous instructions to the jury, * * * rests largely in the sound discretion of the court, and its decision will not be disturbed on appeal unless there has been a clear abuse of that discretion.” Lindstrom v. Yellow Taxi Co. of Minneapolis, 298 Minn. 224, 230 , (quoting Storey v. Weinberg, 226 Minn. 48, 51 , ).
Peters v. Mutual Benefit Life Insurance Co. 420 N.W.2d 908 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Peters v. Mutual Benefit Life Insurance Co. 420 N.W.2d 908 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
See Lindstrom v. Yellow Taxi Co. of Minneapolis, 298 Minn. 224, 229
State Bank of Hamburg v. Stoeckmann 417 N.W.2d 113 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
State Bank of Hamburg v. Stoeckmann 417 N.W.2d 113 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Lindstrom v. Yellow Taxi Company of Minneapolis, 298 Minn. 224, 229
Parker v. Crabtree's Kitchen 404 N.W.2d 872 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Parker v. Crabtree's Kitchen 404 N.W.2d 872 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Lindstrom v. Yellow Taxi Co. of Minneapolis, 298 Minn. 224, 230 , (quoting Storey v. Weinberg, 226 Minn. 48, 51 , ).
Betzold v. Sherwin 404 N.W.2d 286 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Betzold v. Sherwin 404 N.W.2d 286 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Lindstrom v. Yellow Taxi Co., 298 Minn. 224
Mervin v. Magney Construction Co. 399 N.W.2d 579 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Mervin v. Magney Construction Co. 399 N.W.2d 579 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
See Lindstrom v. Yellow Taxi Co., 298 Minn. 224, 229 , (errors in jury instructions are “fundamental or controlling” if they “ ‘destroy the substantial correctness of the charge as a whole’ ” or result in “substantial prejudice”).
Wagner v. Thomas J. Obert Enterprises 396 N.W.2d 223 Minn. 1986
Wagner v. Thomas J. Obert Enterprises 396 N.W.2d 223 Minn. 1986
Thereafter, in Lindstrom v. Yellow Taxi Co. of Minneapolis, 298 Minn. 224 , we held the attending doctor’s hospital notes on the cause of an áccident, when offered by the defendant, are not admissible under the business records exception as either sub *228 stantive or impeachment evidence, at least “when the treating physicians are unavailable, are not called, or are
Western Fire Insurance Co. v. Persons 393 N.W.2d 234 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Western Fire Insurance Co. v. Persons 393 N.W.2d 234 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Lindstrom v. Yellow Taxi Company of Minneapolis, 298 Minn. 224, 229
Wagner v. Thomas J. Obert Enterprises 384 N.W.2d 477 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Wagner v. Thomas J. Obert Enterprises 384 N.W.2d 477 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Lindstrom v. Yellow Taxi Company of Minneapolis, 298 Minn. 224, 232
Peppin v. W.H. Brady Co. 372 N.W.2d 369 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Peppin v. W.H. Brady Co. 372 N.W.2d 369 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Brady claims that the court’s errors in this instance constituted error with respect to fundamental law and controlling principle, and therefore should be reviewable even in the absence of an objection, citing Lindstrom v. Yellow Taxi Co., 298 Minn. 224, 229
Hanzel v. Good Earth, Inc. 371 N.W.2d 72 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Hanzel v. Good Earth, Inc. 371 N.W.2d 72 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Lindstrom v. Yellow Taxi Co., 298 Minn. 224, 229
Rick v. Worden 369 N.W.2d 15 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Rick v. Worden 369 N.W.2d 15 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Lindstrom v. Yellow Taxi Co., 298 Minn. 224, 229
Sievert v. LaMarca 367 N.W.2d 580 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Sievert v. LaMarca 367 N.W.2d 580 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Lindstrom v. Yellow Taxi Co., 298 Minn. 224, 229 , (cites omitted).
Smits v. E-Z Por Corp. 365 N.W.2d 352 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Smits v. E-Z Por Corp. 365 N.W.2d 352 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Lindstrom v. Yellow Taxi Co., 298 Minn. 224, 229
Tennant Co. v. Advance MacH. Co., Inc. 355 N.W.2d 720 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Tennant Co. v. Advance MacH. Co., Inc. 355 N.W.2d 720 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Lindstrom v. Yellow Taxi Co. of Minneapolis, 298 Minn. 224, 229 , (footnotes omitted).
Fallin v. Maplewood-North St. Paul District No. 622 348 N.W.2d 811 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Fallin v. Maplewood-North St. Paul District No. 622 348 N.W.2d 811 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Errors are 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.” Lindstrom v. Yellow Taxi Co., 298 Minn. 224, 229
Cornfeldt v. Tongen 262 N.W.2d 684 Minn. 1977
Cornfeldt v. Tongen 262 N.W.2d 684 Minn. 1977
Although the diagnosis was not a “self-serving statement,” Boutang v. Twin City Motor Bus Co., 248 Minn. 240, 247 , and thus would otherwise be admissible as a hospital record, Lindstrom v. Yellow Taxi Co., 298 Minn. 224, 232 , a difficulty arises because it is an unusual opinion of a nontestifying expert.
Wadena v. Bush 232 N.W.2d 753 Minn. 1975
Wadena v. Bush 232 N.W.2d 753 Minn. 1975
In its most recent discussion of that general rule, Lindstrom v. Yellow Taxi Co. 298 Minn. 224, 232 , this court said: “In order to have the hospital records admitted either as substantive evidence or for impeachment, the defendant must show that the hospital record is admissible to prove that the statement was made by the patient.
Wild v. Rarig 234 N.W.2d 775 Minn. 1975
Wild v. Rarig 234 N.W.2d 775 Minn. 1975
Rule 103.04, Rules of Civil Appellate Procedure; 11 Lindstrom v. Yellow Taxi Co. 298 Minn. 224