Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Dunshee v. Douglas, 255 N.W.2d 42.

114 citing documents.

Higgins v. Lufi 353 N.W.2d 150 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Hyduke v. Grant 351 N.W.2d 675 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Higgins v. Lufi 353 N.W.2d 150 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Hyduke v. Grant 351 N.W.2d 675 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Hudson v. Snyder Body, Inc. 326 N.W.2d 149 Minn. 1982
Hudson v. Snyder Body, Inc. 326 N.W.2d 149 Minn. 1982
We have often held that “the admissibility of expert testimony rests within the sound discretion of the trial court, and * * [we will not reverse its decision] on appeal unless there is a showing of clear abuse of discretion.”
Anderson Ex Rel. Anderson v. City of Minneapolis 296 N.W.2d 383 Minn. 1980
Anderson Ex Rel. Anderson v. City of Minneapolis 296 N.W.2d 383 Minn. 1980
See e. g., Gruenhagen v. Larson, 310 Minn. 454, 457-8 , , 569 (1976).
Walton v. Jones 286 N.W.2d 710 Minn. 1979
Walton v. Jones 286 N.W.2d 710 Minn. 1979
Hestad v. Pennsylvania Life Ins.
State v. Dewey 272 N.W.2d 355 Minn. 1978
State v. Dewey 272 N.W.2d 355 Minn. 1978
Recently, we at least implied that the same basic rule should govern all kinds of expert accident reconstruction testimony, and that that rule is the one which has been followed with respect to expert testimony concerning speed.
Busch v. Busch Construction, Inc. 262 N.W.2d 377 Minn. 1977
Busch v. Busch Construction, Inc. 262 N.W.2d 377 Minn. 1977
LeMieux v. Bishop, 296 Minn. 372, 378 , Dunshee v. Douglas, Minn.