Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Eklund v. Lund, 222 N.W.2d 348.

24 citing documents.

Larry Walters, et al., Appellants, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
professional lapses but to obviate prejudice.”
Patricia J. Marquardt, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Jean A. Swanson v. Summit Orthopedics, Ltd. Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Jean A. Swanson v. Summit Orthopedics, Ltd. Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Moreover, “[m]isconduct of counsel does not warrant a new trial unless the misconduct clearly resulted in prejudice to the losing party.” Eklund v. Lund, 301 Minn. 359, 362
Heine v. Simon 674 N.W.2d 411 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
Heine v. Simon 674 N.W.2d 411 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
Eklund v. Lund, 301 Minn. 359, 362
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
Eklund v. Lund, 301 Minn. 359, 362
Fore v. Health Dimensions, Inc. 509 N.W.2d 557 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
Fore v. Health Dimensions, Inc. 509 N.W.2d 557 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
Eklund v. Lund, 301 Minn. 359, 362
Kay v. Peter Motor Co., Inc. 483 N.W.2d 481 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
Kay v. Peter Motor Co., Inc. 483 N.W.2d 481 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
Eklund v. Lund, 301 Minn. 359, 362
Bradley v. Hubbard Broadcasting, Inc. 471 N.W.2d 670 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
Bradley v. Hubbard Broadcasting, Inc. 471 N.W.2d 670 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
See Eklund, v. Lund, 301 Minn. 359, 362
Ruppert v. Yaeger 414 N.W.2d 419 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Ruppert v. Yaeger 414 N.W.2d 419 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
The Rupperts must show that counsel’s misconduct resulted in prejudice to the “losing party.” Eklund v. Lund, 301 Minn. 359, 362
Ellingson v. Burlington Northern Railroad 412 N.W.2d 401 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Ellingson v. Burlington Northern Railroad 412 N.W.2d 401 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
See Eklund v. Lund, 301 Minn. 359, 362 , (Misconduct of counsel does not warrant new trial unless *405 misconduct clearly resulted in prejudice to losing party).
Sather v. Snedigar 372 N.W.2d 836 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Sather v. Snedigar 372 N.W.2d 836 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Eklund v. Lund, 301 Minn. 359, 362
Kuehl v. National Tea Co. 245 N.W.2d 235 Minn. 1976
Kuehl v. National Tea Co. 245 N.W.2d 235 Minn. 1976
Eklund v. Lund, 301 Minn. 359
Larson v. Midland Cooperatives, Inc. 232 N.W.2d 810 Minn. 1975
Larson v. Midland Cooperatives, Inc. 232 N.W.2d 810 Minn. 1975
said, in my opinion, in my judgment, I believe that the defendant in this case, the big Midland Oil Company, doesn’t think for one minute that a jury from Dakota County where some people come from smaller communities, that they would ever think in terms of $96,152.00.” The standards by which this court determines whether a remark is improper and prejudicial have been set forth in Eklund v. Lund, 301 Minn. 359