Cited by
Opinions in Minnesota that cite Kallio v. Ford Motor Co., 407 N.W.2d 92.
-
Kristin K. Choronzy, Relator,
Minn. Ct. App. 2019
(stating that “[a]lthough error may exist, unless the error is prejudicial, no grounds exist for reversal”).
-
In the Matter of the Trust Created by Eileen Carlson Kasell, dated September 10, 2013, as amended.
Minn. Ct. App. 2018
P. 61 (requiring harmless error to be ignored); (stating t hat “[a]lthough error may exist , unless the error is prejudicial, no grounds exist for reversal”).
-
State of Minnesota, Respondent,
Minn. Ct. App. 2017
see 4 also State v. Palmer , ( setting for th standard for reviewing a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence).
- Melissa Dawn Paisley v. Clark Davis Kratzer Minn. Ct. App. 2016
-
Melissa Dawn Paisley v. Clark Davis Kratzer
Minn. Ct. App. 2016
P. 61 (requiring harmless error to be ignored); (stating that “[a]lthough error may exist, unless the error is prejudicial, no grounds exist for reversal”); (stating that a district court will not be reversed if it reached an affirmable result for the wrong reason)
- Myers v. Hearth Technologies, Inc. 621 N.W.2d 787 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
- Myers v. Hearth Technologies, Inc. 621 N.W.2d 787 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
- Drager Ex Rel. Gutzman v. Aluminum Industries Corp. 495 N.W.2d 879 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
-
Drager Ex Rel. Gutzman v. Aluminum Industries Corp.
495 N.W.2d 879
Minn. Ct. App. 1993
While we recognize that under Minnesota law the "existence of a safer, practical alternative design is not an element of an alleged defective product design prima facie case,” we do not deem this distinction sufficient to under *885 mine the persuasive nature of the Lamkin decision.
- Beniek v. Textron, Inc. 479 N.W.2d 719 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
- Beniek v. Textron, Inc. 479 N.W.2d 719 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
- Westbrock v. Marshalltown Mfg. Co. 473 N.W.2d 352 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
-
Westbrock v. Marshalltown Mfg. Co.
473 N.W.2d 352
Minn. Ct. App. 1991
Furthermore, coupled with the supreme court’s strong statement concerning the practical necessity of proving a -97 (Minn.1987), a product may be sufficiently safe if a device could not feasibly be installed in a multi-purpose machine without impairing the machine’s multi-purpose nature.
- 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
- Huber v. Niagara MacH. and Tool Works 430 N.W.2d 465 Minn. 1988
- Huber v. Niagara MacH. and Tool Works 430 N.W.2d 465 Minn. 1988
- Hodder v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. 426 N.W.2d 826 Minn. 1988
- Hodder v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. 426 N.W.2d 826 Minn. 1988