Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Cornfeldt v. Tongen, 262 N.W.2d 684.

153 citing documents.

K.A.C. v. Benson 527 N.W.2d 553 Minn. 1995
Cornfeldt v. Tongen (Cornfeldt I)
Hempel v. Fairview Hospitals & Healthcare Services, Inc. 504 N.W.2d 487 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
Hempel v. Fairview Hospitals & Healthcare Services, Inc. 504 N.W.2d 487 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
Williams v. Wadsworth 503 N.W.2d 120 Minn. 1993
Williams v. Wadsworth 503 N.W.2d 120 Minn. 1993
Williams v. Wadsworth 490 N.W.2d 426 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
Williams v. Wadsworth 490 N.W.2d 426 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
Fiedler v. Spoelhof 483 N.W.2d 486 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
Fiedler v. Spoelhof 483 N.W.2d 486 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
Hunt v. Regents of the University of Minnesota 460 N.W.2d 28 Minn. 1990
Hunt v. Regents of the University of Minnesota 460 N.W.2d 28 Minn. 1990
More recently, in a matter providing substantial procedural distinctions from the instant case, we commented that no "foreseeable” cross issues might arise thereby limiting the aggregate peremptory challenges of the multiple defendants to two.
Ruether v. State 455 N.W.2d 475 Minn. 1990
Ruether v. State 455 N.W.2d 475 Minn. 1990
Hunt v. Regents of University 446 N.W.2d 400 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Hunt v. Regents of University 446 N.W.2d 400 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Whether respondents merit additional peremptory challenges “depends on whether they have ‘adverse interests’ necessitating ‘due protection’ within the terms of the statute.”
Madsen v. Park Nicollet Medical Center 431 N.W.2d 855 Minn. 1988
Madsen v. Park Nicollet Medical Center 431 N.W.2d 855 Minn. 1988
The primary issue this appeal presents is whether the negligent nondisclosure rule, *856 is applicable in a medical malpractice case in which the claim of negligent nondisclosure is based on the alleged failure of the attending physician to inform the patient of the availability of additional, as distinguished from alternate, treatment, and the risk associated with not accepting the additiona
Chicago Greatwestern Office Condominium Ass'n v. Brooks 427 N.W.2d 728 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Chicago Greatwestern Office Condominium Ass'n v. Brooks 427 N.W.2d 728 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
19, 1986) (trial court sanctions for failure to notify opponent of expert who will testify at trial), modified on other grounds
Madsen v. Park Nicollet Medical Center 419 N.W.2d 511 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Madsen v. Park Nicollet Medical Center 419 N.W.2d 511 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
See also Cornfeldt v. Tongen (Cornfeldt I), Cornfeldt v. Tongen (Cornfeldt II)
Pratt Ex Rel. Pratt v. University of Minnesota Affiliated Hospitals 414 N.W.2d 399 Minn. 1987
Pratt Ex Rel. Pratt v. University of Minnesota Affiliated Hospitals 414 N.W.2d 399 Minn. 1987
It is simply whether the doctrine of negligent nondisclosure, applies to cases involving genetic diagnosis.
McCarthy Well Co. v. St. Peter Creamery, Inc. 410 N.W.2d 312 Minn. 1987
McCarthy Well Co. v. St. Peter Creamery, Inc. 410 N.W.2d 312 Minn. 1987
Werdin v. Fielden 406 N.W.2d 89 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Werdin v. Fielden 406 N.W.2d 89 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
“In a medical malpractice action, the plaintiff ordinarily must offer expert testimony to establish the standard of care and the defendant’s departure from that standard.”
Shipka v. Helvig 405 N.W.2d 248 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Shipka v. Helvig 405 N.W.2d 248 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Fick v. Wolfinger, 293 Minn. 483, 486
Pratt Ex Rel. Pratt v. University of Minnesota Affiliated Hospitals & Clinics 403 N.W.2d 865 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Pratt Ex Rel. Pratt v. University of Minnesota Affiliated Hospitals & Clinics 403 N.W.2d 865 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
the first case to recognize the doctrine of negligent nondisclosure as a distinct cause of action within the realm of medical malpractice, the plaintiff suffered from a perforated ulcer and emergency surgery was indicated.
Norwest Bank Midland v. Shinnick 402 N.W.2d 818 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Norwest Bank Midland v. Shinnick 402 N.W.2d 818 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Bauer v. Friedland 394 N.W.2d 549 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Bauer v. Friedland 394 N.W.2d 549 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
State ex rel. Spannaus v. Heimer 393 N.W.2d 687 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
State ex rel. Spannaus v. Heimer 393 N.W.2d 687 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Kraushaar v. Austin Medical Clinic P.A. 393 N.W.2d 217 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Kraushaar v. Austin Medical Clinic P.A. 393 N.W.2d 217 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
modified on other grounds
Benson v. Johnson 392 N.W.2d 890 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Benson v. Johnson 392 N.W.2d 890 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
In the case of medical witnesses, the supreme court has required “both sufficient scientific knowledge of and some practical experience with the subject matter of the offered testimony.”
McCarthy Well Co. v. St. Peter Creamery, Inc. 389 N.W.2d 514 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
McCarthy Well Co. v. St. Peter Creamery, Inc. 389 N.W.2d 514 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Ouellette Ex Rel. Ouellette v. Subak 391 N.W.2d 810 Minn. 1986
Ouellette Ex Rel. Ouellette v. Subak 391 N.W.2d 810 Minn. 1986
Dennie v. Metropolitan Medical Center 387 N.W.2d 401 Minn. 1986
Dennie v. Metropolitan Medical Center 387 N.W.2d 401 Minn. 1986
this court upheld the trial court’s exclusion of two medical experts’ testimony.
Alholm v. Wilt 380 N.W.2d 851 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Alholm v. Wilt 380 N.W.2d 851 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Kohoutek v. Hafner 383 N.W.2d 295 Minn. 1986