Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Wohlfeil v. Murray MacHinery, Inc., 344 N.W.2d 869.

28 citing documents.

Hope Larsen v. Erin Lee Mullen and d/b/a Running LL's Ranch Minn. Ct. App. 2026
Hope Larsen v. Erin Lee Mullen and d/b/a Running LL's Ranch Minn. Ct. App. 2026
See, d 310, 330 (Minn. 2016) (describing “routine evidentiary rulings and matters traditionally addressed during private bench conferences” as “routine administrative proceedings”); Wohlfeil v. Murray Mach., Inc., -75 (Minn. App. 1984) (analyzing an evidentiary issue discussed at two bench conferences during trial).
Fairview Hospital & Health Care Services v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance Co. 535 N.W.2d 337 Minn. 1995
Fairview Hospital & Health Care Services v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance Co. 535 N.W.2d 337 Minn. 1995
See, (stating trial court found expert testimony “speculative and lacking foundation”); Wohlfeil v. Murray Mach., Inc., (stating trial court found expert testimony was “sheer speculation”).
Block v. Target Stores, Inc. 458 N.W.2d 705 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
Block v. Target Stores, Inc. 458 N.W.2d 705 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
for rev. denied (Minn. May 20, 1985) (physician’s testimony concerning likelihood defendant fathered *711 child admissible in paternity action); Wohlfeil v. Murray Machinery, Inc., (expert testimony regarding probability accident was caused by defect in machinery admissible in products liability action).
Western Surety & Casualty Co. v. General Electric Co. 433 N.W.2d 444 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Western Surety & Casualty Co. v. General Electric Co. 433 N.W.2d 444 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Wohlfeil v. Murray Machinery, Inc.
Henkel v. Holm 411 N.W.2d 1 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Henkel v. Holm 411 N.W.2d 1 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Wohlfeil v. Murray Machinery, Inc.
Herron v. Green Tree Acceptance, Inc. 411 N.W.2d 192 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Herron v. Green Tree Acceptance, Inc. 411 N.W.2d 192 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Wohlfeil v. Murray Machinery, Inc.
Law v. Essick Manufacturing Co. 396 N.W.2d 883 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Law v. Essick Manufacturing Co. 396 N.W.2d 883 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
See Wohlfeil v. Murray Machinery, Inc., (it is not necessary that “an expert observe how a person was injured or operate the machine that allegedly caused the accident”).
Tesmer v. Rich Ladder Co. 380 N.W.2d 203 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Tesmer v. Rich Ladder Co. 380 N.W.2d 203 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Our decision here coincides with one in Wohlfeil v. Murray Machinery, 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
Wohlfeil v. Murray Machinery, Inc.
Dvoracek v. Gillies 363 N.W.2d 99 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Dvoracek v. Gillies 363 N.W.2d 99 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
ANALYSIS I In reviewing the trial court’s grant of a directed verdict this court must consider whether, viewing the record as a whole in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, “different persons could reasonably come to different conclusions.” Wohlfeil v. Murray Machinery, Inc., (quoting Lakeland Constructors, Inc. v. Roger Sheehy Co., 304 Minn. 175, 178 , -16 (1975)).
Dahlbeck v. DICO Co., Inc. 355 N.W.2d 157 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Dahlbeck v. DICO Co., Inc. 355 N.W.2d 157 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Wohlfeil v. Murray Machinery, Inc.
Elias v. City of St. Paul 350 N.W.2d 442 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Elias v. City of St. Paul 350 N.W.2d 442 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
In Wohlfeil v. Murray Machinery, Inc., , No. C1-83-1169, slip.
Haas v. Gaviser 348 N.W.2d 406 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Haas v. Gaviser 348 N.W.2d 406 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Kozak v. Weis 348 N.W.2d 798 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Kozak v. Weis 348 N.W.2d 798 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Wohlfeil v. Murray Machinery, Inc., -73 (Minn.App.1984) (citations omitted).