Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite E.C.I. Corp. v. G.G.C. Co., 237 N.W.2d 627.

70 citing documents.

Bongard v. Bongard 342 N.W.2d 156 Minn. Ct. App. 1983
Corp., 306 Minn. 433 , (Barrett rule not strictly applied in the interests of justice).
In Re Commodore Hotel Fire & Explosion Cases 324 N.W.2d 245 Minn. 1982
In Re Commodore Hotel Fire & Explosion Cases 324 N.W.2d 245 Minn. 1982
Co., 306 Minn. 433 , Fulsom v. Egner, 248 Minn. 156
Dennis Frandsen & Co. v. County of Kanabec 306 N.W.2d 566 Minn. 1981
Dennis Frandsen & Co. v. County of Kanabec 306 N.W.2d 566 Minn. 1981
Co., 306 Minn. 433, 435 , we said, “[T]he time to appeal an issue begins to run anew from a modification of judgment when the issue was for some reason not appealable before the modification.” Here, the issue of the kind of voting authority conferred by the voters on the town board was determined under the fi
State v. Olkon 299 N.W.2d 89 Minn. 1980
State v. Olkon 299 N.W.2d 89 Minn. 1980
Flame Bar, Inc. v. City of Minneapolis 295 N.W.2d 586 Minn. 1980
Krug v. Independent School District No. 16 293 N.W.2d 26 Minn. 1980
Krug v. Independent School District No. 16 293 N.W.2d 26 Minn. 1980
Co., 306 Minn. 433, 435 , we said: “[T]he time to appeal an issue begins to run anew from a modification of judgment when the issue was for some reason not appealable before the modification.” Under this rule, the May 22 amendment could be said to have raised a new issue because the district court had not spe
Meyers v. Postal Finance Co. 287 N.W.2d 614 Minn. 1979
Meyers v. Postal Finance Co. 287 N.W.2d 614 Minn. 1979
E. C. I. Corp. v. G. G. C. Co., 306 Minn. 433 , Smith v. Kahler Corp., Inc., 297 Minn. 272
Southland Corp. v. City of Minneapolis 279 N.W.2d 822 Minn. 1979
Southland Corp. v. City of Minneapolis 279 N.W.2d 822 Minn. 1979
Co., 306 Minn. 433, 436 , this court held: “* * * We do not consider that the defendant was inexcusably dilatory.
Colby v. Gibbons 276 N.W.2d 170 Minn. 1979
Colby v. Gibbons 276 N.W.2d 170 Minn. 1979
The admissibility of evidence is within the discretion of the trial court, E. C. I. Corp. v. G. G. C. Co., 306 Minn. 433, 437 , and the trial court’s determination of remoteness and relevancy will be overturned only if there has been an abuse of discretion, Renne v. Gustafson, 292 Minn. 218, 223
Lines v. Ryan 272 N.W.2d 896 Minn. 1978
Lines v. Ryan 272 N.W.2d 896 Minn. 1978
Helm v. El Rehbein & Son, Inc. 257 N.W.2d 584 Minn. 1977
Helm v. El Rehbein & Son, Inc. 257 N.W.2d 584 Minn. 1977
E. C. I. Corp. v. G. G. C. Co., 306 Minn. 433

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by