Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Jenson v. Touche Ross & Co., 335 N.W.2d 720.

144 citing documents.

Carney Lien, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Jenson v. Touche Ross & Co.
In the Matter of the Civil Commitment of: Gordon Emil Miles. Minn. Ct. App. 2014
In the Matter of the Civil Commitment of: Gordon Emil Miles. Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Evidentiary rulings on “the cumulative nature of the evidence are committed to the sound discretion of the trial judge and will only be the basis for reversal where that discretion has been clearly abused.” Jenson v. Touche Ross & Co.
Niemi v. Girl Scouts of Minnesota & Wisconsin Lakes & Pines 768 N.W.2d 385 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
Niemi v. Girl Scouts of Minnesota & Wisconsin Lakes & Pines 768 N.W.2d 385 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
Niemi urges us to analyze her motion in the same manner as did the district court, that is, by applying the three-part test of Jenson v. Touche Ross & Co.
State v. McLaughlin 725 N.W.2d 703 Minn. 2007
State v. McLaughlin 725 N.W.2d 703 Minn. 2007
See Jenson v. Touche Ross & Co., (“[R]ulings on * * * the cumulative nature of the evidence are committed to the sound discretion of the trial judge and will only be the basis for reversal where that discretion has been clearly abused.”).
George v. Estate of Baker 724 N.W.2d 1 Minn. 2006
George v. Estate of Baker 724 N.W.2d 1 Minn. 2006
See Jenson v. Touche Ross & Co., (applying standard to exclusion of evidence) superceded by rule on other grounds, Minn. R. Prof.
In Re Disciplinary Action Against Wood 716 N.W.2d 341 Minn. 2006
In Re Disciplinary Action Against Wood 716 N.W.2d 341 Minn. 2006
“Rulings on evidentiary matters are left to the discretion of the district court and will not be reversed absent an abuse of discretion.” (citing Jenson v. Touche Ross & Co., ).
Rainforest Cafe, Inc. v. State Investment Board 677 N.W.2d 443 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
Rainforest Cafe, Inc. v. State Investment Board 677 N.W.2d 443 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
See Jenson v. Touche Ross & Co.
Lennartson v. Anoka-Hennepin Independent School District No. 11 662 N.W.2d 125 Minn. 2003
Lennartson v. Anoka-Hennepin Independent School District No. 11 662 N.W.2d 125 Minn. 2003
The Minnesota Court of Appeals reversed, concluding that the appropriate test for evaluating disqualification is that created by this court in Jenson v. Touche Ross & Co.
W.G.O. v. Crandall 640 N.W.2d 344 Minn. 2002
W.G.O. v. Crandall 640 N.W.2d 344 Minn. 2002
See Jenson v. Touche Ross & Co., -26 (Minn.1983) (applying standard to exclusion of evidence); Cloverdale Foods of Minnesota, -52 (Minn.App.1998) (applying standard to admission of evidence).
Lennartson v. Anoka-Hennepin Independent School District 11 638 N.W.2d 494 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
Lennartson v. Anoka-Hennepin Independent School District 11 638 N.W.2d 494 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
The School District asserts that the district court instead should have followed the three-part balancing test set forth by the Minnesota Supreme Court in Jenson v. Touche Ross & Co., -32 (Minn.1983).
Blatz v. Allina Health System 622 N.W.2d 376 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
Blatz v. Allina Health System 622 N.W.2d 376 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
Jenson v. Touche Ross & Co.
In Re Estate of Janecek 610 N.W.2d 638 Minn. 2000
In Re Estate of Janecek 610 N.W.2d 638 Minn. 2000
Conduct 1.9 and this court’s ruling in Jenson v. Touche Ross & Co., the nature of Rohleder’s prior representation of Janecek and the decedent created at least the strong appearance of a conflict of interest in his current representation of Haugh as personal representative of the estate.
State v. Ritt 599 N.W.2d 802 Minn. 1999
State v. Ritt 599 N.W.2d 802 Minn. 1999
Jenson v. Touche Ross & Co.
State v. Miles 585 N.W.2d 368 Minn. 1998
State v. Miles 585 N.W.2d 368 Minn. 1998
Jenson v. Touche Ross & Co.
Cloverdale Foods of Minnesota, Inc. v. Snacks 580 N.W.2d 46 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
Cloverdale Foods of Minnesota, Inc. v. Snacks 580 N.W.2d 46 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
See Jenson v. Touche Ross & Co., (erroneous exclusion of evidence); . (error in admitting evidence is prejudicial “if there is a reasonable possibility that the verdict might have been more favorable to the defendant if the evidence had not been admitted”).
In Re the Welfare of S.A.M. 570 N.W.2d 162 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
In Re the Welfare of S.A.M. 570 N.W.2d 162 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
Jenson v. Touche Ross & Co.
Bigay v. Garvey 562 N.W.2d 695 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
Bigay v. Garvey 562 N.W.2d 695 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
Jenson v. Touche Ross & Co.
Boubelik v. Liberty State Bank 553 N.W.2d 393 Minn. 1996
Lundman v. McKown 530 N.W.2d 807 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
Lundman v. McKown 530 N.W.2d 807 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
Jenson v. Touche Ross & Co.
Northern Inns Ltd. v. County of Beltrami 524 N.W.2d 721 Minn. 1994
Northern Inns Ltd. v. County of Beltrami 524 N.W.2d 721 Minn. 1994
Jenson v. Touche Ross & Co.
Nimis v. St. Paul Turners 521 N.W.2d 54 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
Nimis v. St. Paul Turners 521 N.W.2d 54 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
See Jenson v. Touche Ross & Co., (trial court’s decision on admissibility of evidence will only be reversed for an abuse of discretion).
Johnson v. Washington County 518 N.W.2d 594 Minn. 1994
Johnson v. Washington County 518 N.W.2d 594 Minn. 1994
Jenson v. Touche Ross & Co.
Independent School District No. 622 v. Keene Corp. 511 N.W.2d 728 Minn. 1994
Independent School District No. 622 v. Keene Corp. 511 N.W.2d 728 Minn. 1994
Evidentiary rulings are in the sound discretion of the trial judge “and will only be the basis for reversal where that discretion has been clearly abused.” Jenson v. Touche Ross & Co.
Barna v. Commissioner of Public Safety 508 N.W.2d 220 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
Barna v. Commissioner of Public Safety 508 N.W.2d 220 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
*222 Jenson v. Touche, Ross & Co.
Johnson v. Washington County 506 N.W.2d 632 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
Matter of Trust Created by Hill 499 N.W.2d 475 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
Matter of Trust Created by Hill 499 N.W.2d 475 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
See Jenson v. Touche Ross & Co.
Dornfeld v. Oberg 491 N.W.2d 297 Minn. Ct. App. 1992