Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Dennie v. Metropolitan Medical Center, 387 N.W.2d 401.

47 citing documents.

Chad Darwin Koetz, Trustee for the Heirs and Next-of-Kin of Gloria Lynn Koetz, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
Ctr., d 401 (Minn. 1986); Cornfeldt v. Tongen , Kraushaar v. Austin Med.
State of Minnesota v. Kristi Dannette Mcneilly 6 N.W.3d 161 Minn. 2024
State of Minnesota v. Kristi Dannette Mcneilly 6 N.W.3d 161 Minn. 2024
Ctr., —is likewise essential for effectively serving 32 her clients.
In re the Marriage of: Minn. Ct. App. 2024
In re Daniel Cragg, Dalvin Cook v. Gracelyn Trimble, Daniel Cragg,... Minn. Ct. App. 2023
In re Daniel Cragg, Dalvin Cook v. Gracelyn Trimble, Daniel Cragg,... Minn. Ct. App. 2023
Wayne E. Hukriede, et al., Appellants, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
Appellants argue that “Minnesota law has long allowed late disclosure of expert witnesses, where there is no prejudice to the opposing party.” Appellants focus on prejudice and emphasize that the “expert reports were submitted only nine days late.” arguing that “prejudice must be stated and shown.” In Dennie, the supreme court concluded that the district court abused its discretion by suppressing all of a party’s expert testimony for failure to make a timely disclosure.
Minn. 2022
Everest Stables, Inc., Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
A17-0300 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Ctr., (alteration in original) (quotation omitted); see Quill, d at 445 (concluding that exclusion of expert testimony disclosed “one week before trial” was not an abuse of discretion).
James F. Edgar, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
– 04 (Minn. 1986), in which the supreme court determined that the district court abused its discretion by suppressing expert testimony on the day of trial because of plaintiff’s untimely disclosure.
Macy's Retail Holdings, Inc. v. County of Hennepin 899 N.W.2d 451 Minn. 2017
Macy's Retail Holdings, Inc. v. County of Hennepin 899 N.W.2d 451 Minn. 2017
After reviewing the written submissions of the parties, the tax court once again denied the motion, concluding that striking portions of Bakken’s
In Re Disciplinary Action Against Dedefo 752 N.W.2d 523 Minn. 2008
In Re Disciplinary Action Against Dedefo 752 N.W.2d 523 Minn. 2008
Broehm v. Mayo Clinic Rochester 690 N.W.2d 721 Minn. 2005
City Pages v. State 655 N.W.2d 839 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
City Pages v. State 655 N.W.2d 839 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
Ctr., (citations omitted).
State Ex Rel. Humphrey v. Philip Morris Inc. 606 N.W.2d 676 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
State Ex Rel. Humphrey v. Philip Morris Inc. 606 N.W.2d 676 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
Lindberg v. Health Partners, Inc. 599 N.W.2d 572 Minn. 1999
Bjorke v. Mayo Clinic of Rochester 574 N.W.2d 447 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
Bjorke v. Mayo Clinic of Rochester 574 N.W.2d 447 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
Stroud v. Hennepin County Medical Center 556 N.W.2d 552 Minn. 1996
Stroud v. Hennepin County Medical Center 556 N.W.2d 552 Minn. 1996
Domtar, Inc. v. Niagara Fire Insurance Co. 552 N.W.2d 738 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
Domtar, Inc. v. Niagara Fire Insurance Co. 552 N.W.2d 738 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
(applying abuse of discretion standard of review).
Stroud v. Hennepin County Medical Center 544 N.W.2d 42 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
Stroud v. Hennepin County Medical Center 544 N.W.2d 42 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
Uselman v. Uselman 464 N.W.2d 130 Minn. 1990
Uselman v. Uselman 464 N.W.2d 130 Minn. 1990
Sorenson v. St. Paul Ramsey Medical Center 457 N.W.2d 188 Minn. 1990
Sorenson v. St. Paul Ramsey Medical Center 457 N.W.2d 188 Minn. 1990
Henke v. Dunham 450 N.W.2d 595 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
Henke v. Dunham 450 N.W.2d 595 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
-14 (Minn.1989) (defendant brought “summary judgment” motion for plaintiffs’ alleged failure to comply with Minn.Stat.
Sorenson v. St. Paul Ramsey Medical Center 444 N.W.2d 848 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Sorenson v. St. Paul Ramsey Medical Center 444 N.W.2d 848 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
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
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
“The general rule in Minnesota is expert testimony should be suppressed for failure to make a timely disclosure of the expert's identity only where 'counsel's dereliction * * * is inexcusable and results in disadvantage to his opponent.’ ” (quoting Krech v. Erdman, 305 Minn. 215, 218 , ).
Bush v. Winter 402 N.W.2d 229 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Bush v. Winter 402 N.W.2d 229 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
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
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

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by