Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Busch v. Busch Construction, Inc., 262 N.W.2d 377.

98 citing documents.

Dwight Higgins, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2026
On appeal, State Farm asserts that the opening-the-door doctrine applies only “where an opponent has ‘opened the door’ by introducing similarly inadmissible evidence on the same point.” Busch v. Busch Constr., Inc., (emphasis added).
Ty Bernard, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
See Busch v. Busch Constr., Inc., 13 (“Although in some instances [the district court] may .
Kelly Michels, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2024
Jonathan G. Foss, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
Busch v. Busch Constr., Inc.
Nicholas Houchins, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Gabrielle Marie Geraci, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
See Busch v. Busch Const., Inc., -87 (Minn. 1977) (recognizing that a party may introduce similarly inadmissible evidence when the opposing party opened the door).
Steven Brown, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
See Lamont, 278 Minn. at 295, d at 192; see also Busch v. Busch Constr., Inc., -99 (Minn. 1977).
Brown-Wilbert, Inc. v. Copeland Buhl & Co. 732 N.W.2d 209 Minn. 2007
Brown-Wilbert, Inc. v. Copeland Buhl & Co. 732 N.W.2d 209 Minn. 2007
Accountants cite to Boland v. Morrill, 275 Minn. 496, 502 , rev’d on other grounds, Busch v. Busch Construction, Inc., -02 (Minn.1977), to support their argument that claim splitting is separate from res judicata.
George v. Estate of Baker 724 N.W.2d 1 Minn. 2006
George v. Estate of Baker 724 N.W.2d 1 Minn. 2006
ting the probable length of life, whether they were introduced in evidence or not.”); Tollefson v. Ehlers, 252 Minn. 370, 377 , (accepting the American Experience Tables of Mortality); Hallada v. Great N. Ry., 244 Minn. 81, 95 , -85 (1955) (accepting the U.S. Life Experience Table of Mortality), overruled on other grounds by Busch v. Busch Const., Inc., Thoirs v. Pounsford, 210 Minn. 462, 464, 466-67 , 299 N.W.
Trigger's Supper Club v. Sunridge Farms, Inc. 647 N.W.2d 1 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
In Re Shigellosis Litigation 647 N.W.2d 1 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
Trigger's Supper Club v. Sunridge Farms, Inc. 647 N.W.2d 1 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
See Busch v. Busch Constr., Inc., -94 (Minn.1977) (noting ordinary negligence may be compared with strict liability of manufacturer).
In Re Shigellosis Litigation 647 N.W.2d 1 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
See Busch v. Busch Constr., Inc., -94 (Minn.1977) (noting ordinary negligence may be compared with strict liability of manufacturer).
State v. Profit 591 N.W.2d 451 Minn. 1999
State v. Profit 591 N.W.2d 451 Minn. 1999
(citing Busch v. Busch Constr., Inc., ).
Cox v. Crown CoCo, Inc. 544 N.W.2d 490 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
Cox v. Crown CoCo, Inc. 544 N.W.2d 490 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
-97 (Minn.1977); Olsen v. Special Sch.
Lundman v. McKown 530 N.W.2d 807 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
Lundman v. McKown 530 N.W.2d 807 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
Appellants argue that admission of this letter “opened the door” for them to introduce further evidence regarding the criminal proceedings in McKown I. Appellants cite Busch v. Busch Constr., Inc., which involves the doctrine of curative admissibility.
Roers v. Engebretson 479 N.W.2d 422 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
Roers v. Engebretson 479 N.W.2d 422 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
Co., 244 Minn. 81, 95 , overruled on other grounds, Busch v. Busch Constr., Inc.
Lieser v. Sexton 441 N.W.2d 805 Minn. 1989
Lieser v. Sexton 441 N.W.2d 805 Minn. 1989
See Busch v. Busch Const., Inc., -96 (Minn.1977); Steinhaus v. Adamson, 304 Minn. 14, 21
Omnetics, Inc. v. Radiant Technology Corp. 440 N.W.2d 177 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Omnetics, Inc. v. Radiant Technology Corp. 440 N.W.2d 177 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Busch v. Busch Construction, Inc., -94 (Minn.1977) (construing Minn.Stat.
Olsen v. Special School Dist. No. 1 427 N.W.2d 707 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Olsen v. Special School Dist. No. 1 427 N.W.2d 707 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Marie Railroad, 244 Minn. 1 , (cost of daily health attendant care was discounted); Busch v. Busch Construction, Inc., (injured parties’ future medical expenses were discounted to present value by jury).
Mervin v. Magney Construction Co. 416 N.W.2d 121 Minn. 1987
Mervin v. Magney Construction Co. 416 N.W.2d 121 Minn. 1987
Busch v. Busch Constr., Inc.
Kallio v. Ford Motor Co. 407 N.W.2d 92 Minn. 1987
Kallio v. Ford Motor Co. 407 N.W.2d 92 Minn. 1987
See, (plaintiff presented evidence of manufacturer's actual alternative design of dockboard); Hudson v. Snyder Body, Inc., (plaintiff presented evidence that a portion of the release mechanism of a hydraulic bed dumptruck was superfluously long creating the defect); Busch v. Busch Constr., Inc., (plaintiff presented evidence that a turn signal's use of a plastic yoke inside of a locking steering column required a design allowing a greater clearance radius than the manufacturer’s design had allow
State v. Conklin 406 N.W.2d 84 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
State v. Conklin 406 N.W.2d 84 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Busch v. Busch Construction, Inc.
Krein v. Raudabough 406 N.W.2d 315 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Krein v. Raudabough 406 N.W.2d 315 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Judging the weight and credibility of conflicting expert testimony is a matter for the jury, Shymanski v. Nash, 312 Minn. 304, 308 , Busch v. Busch Construction, Inc.
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
Kwapien v. Starr 400 N.W.2d 179 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Kwapien v. Starr 400 N.W.2d 179 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Busch v. Busch Construction, Inc.
Kohoutek v. Hafner 383 N.W.2d 295 Minn. 1986
Kohoutek v. Hafner 383 N.W.2d 295 Minn. 1986
See also Busch v. Busch Construction, Inc.
Larson v. Anderson, Taunton & Walsh, Inc. 379 N.W.2d 615 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Larson v. Anderson, Taunton & Walsh, Inc. 379 N.W.2d 615 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Appellants argue that the evidence should have been admitted under the doctrine of “curative admissibility” citing McNab v. Jeppesen, 258 Minn. 15 , and Busch v. Busch Construction, Inc.
In Re the Welfare of S.J. 367 N.W.2d 651 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
In Re the Welfare of S.J. 367 N.W.2d 651 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
citing Busch v. Busch Construction, Inc.
McPherson v. Buege 360 N.W.2d 344 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
McPherson v. Buege 360 N.W.2d 344 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
See Busch v. Busch Construction, Inc.
Employers Mutual Insurance Co. v. Oakes Manufacturing Co. 356 N.W.2d 719 Minn. Ct. App. 1984