Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Gross v. Victoria Station Farms, Inc., 578 N.W.2d 757.

60 citing documents.

Lauren Strahan, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
“[A]dmissibility of an expert opinion rests within the sound discretion of the trial court and will not be reversed unless it is based on an erroneous view of the law or it is an abuse of discretion.” Gross v. Victoria Station Farms, Inc.
In the Marriage of: Minn. Ct. App. 2025
Gross v. Victoria Station Farms, Inc.
Travis Widner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
20 A district court has “considerable discretion in determining the sufficiency of foundation laid for expert opinion.” Gross v. Victoria Station Farms, Inc., d 757, 760-61 (Minn. 1998) (quotation omitted).
In the Matter of: Serina Anne Aubrecht, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
A decision to exclude expert opinion testimony lies “within the sound discretion of the trial court and will not be reversed unless it is based on an erroneous view of the law or it is an abuse of discretion.” Gross v. Victoria Station Farms, Inc., –61 (Minn. 1998).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
scretion by allowing Mitnick’s expert testimony because the testimony did not meet the requirements for admissibility under Minnesota Rule of Evidence 702.2 Appellate courts will not reverse a district court’s evidentiary ruling on the admissibility of expert testimony “unless it is based on an erroneous view of the law or it is an abuse of discretion.” Gross v. Victoria Station Farms, Inc.
Michael Walker, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2024
See Gross v. Victoria Station Farms, Inc., The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language 7 (5th ed. 2018) (defining “abstruse” as “[d]ifficult to understand”).
Judith Rygwall, as Trustee for the Heirs and Next of Kin of Amy Rygwall v. ACR Homes, Inc. … 6 N.W.3d 416 Minn. 2024
Judith Rygwall, as Trustee for the Heirs and Next of Kin of Amy Rygwall v. ACR Homes, Inc. … 6 N.W.3d 416 Minn. 2024
702; Gross v. Victoria Station Farms, Inc., (“The competency of an expert witness to provide a medical opinion depends upon both the degree of the witness’s scientific knowledge and the extent of the witness’s practical Failure to comply with subdivision 4 because of deficiencies in the affidavit or answers to interrogatories
Jon Huseth, et al., d/b/a Clay View Dairy, LLP, Appellants, Minn. Ct. App. 2024
See Gross v. Victoria Station Farms, Inc., In re 3M Bair Hugger Litig., , rev. denied (Minn. Mar.
Janet C. Dreyer, et al., Appellants, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
“A district court’s evidentiary ruling on the admissibility of an expert opinion rests within the sound discretion of the [district] court and will not be reversed unless it is based on an erroneous view of the law or it is an abuse of discretion.” Gross v. Victoria Station Farms, Inc.
David Loe, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
Gross v. Victoria Station Farms, Inc., ; Maethner v. Someplace Safe, Inc.
Anthony Kelley, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
Gross v. Victoria Station Farms, Inc.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
“A district court’s evidentiary ruling on the admissibility of an expert opinion rests within the sound discretion of the [district] court and will not be reversed unless it is based on an erroneous view of the law or it is an abuse of discretion.” Gross v. Victoria Station Farms, Inc., -61 (Minn. 1998).
A21-1356 Minn. Ct. App. 2022
of Minn., (quoting Gross v. Victoria Station Farms, Inc., ).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, vs. Marcel Dylan Zephier, Appellant. Minn. Ct. App. 2022
Gross v. Victoria Station Farms, Inc.
April Ann Rowe, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
Gross v. Victoria Station Farms, Inc.
Mario A. Ruiz, et al., Appellants, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
“[W]e have required both sufficient scientific knowledge of and some practical experience with the subject matter of the offered testimony.” see also Gross
Patricia J. Marquardt, Minn. 2020
of Minn ., (quoting Gross v. Victoria Station Farms, Inc. , ) , refusing to reverse even if we “would reach a different conclusion with respect to the sufficiency of the foundation,”
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
5 A district court’s ruling on evidentiary matters, including on the admissibility of an expert opinion , “rest within the so und discretion ” of the district court and “will not be reversed unless it is based on an erroneous view of the law or it is an abuse of discretion.” Gross v. Victoria Station Farms, Inc. , ; (“[T]his court will not reverse a trial court’s evidentiary ruling absent a clear abuse of discretion.”).
Mark Kedrowski, Minn. 2019
” The court stated that Kedrowski needed “an admissible expert opinion that the subject fuel pump was, more likely than not, a substantial contributing factor in causing the crash.” See Gross v. Victoria Station Farms, Inc. , (“Expert opinion is required to prove causation if the issue is outside the realm of common knowledge.”).
County of Hennepin, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
will not be reversed absent clear abuse of discretion.” Gross v. Victoria Station Farms, Inc., -61 (Minn. 1998) (quotations and citations omitted).
Alby v. BNSF Ry. Co. 918 N.W.2d 562 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Alby v. BNSF Ry. Co. 918 N.W.2d 562 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Gross v. Victoria Station Farms, Inc. , , 761 (Minn. 1998) ; see also Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael , 526 U.S. 137 , 142, 119 S.Ct.
George Lanoue, et al., Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Gross v. Victoria Station Farms, Inc., (“Expert opinion is required to prove causation if the issue is outside the realm of common knowledge.”).
Mark Kedrowski, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Gross v. Victoria Station Farms, Inc., see also Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137, 142, 119 S. Ct. 1167, 1171 (1999) (“[T]he law grants a district court the same broad latitude when it decides how to determine reliability as it enjoys in respect to its ultimate reliability determination.”).
Timothy Boldt, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
A district court’s evidentiary ruling on the admissibility of an expert opinion “will not be reversed unless it is based on an erroneous view of the law or it is an abuse of discretion.” Gross v. Victoria Station Farms, Inc., .
Derby Construction, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Gross v. Victoria Station Farms, Inc.
Mark Wilmes, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
“A district court’s evidentiary ruling on the admissibility of an expert opinion rests within the sound discretion of the [district] court and will not be reversed unless it is based on an erroneous view of the law or it is an abuse of discretion.” Gross v. Victoria Station Farms, Inc.
Ellen Gianotti v. Independent School District 152 and RAM Mutual Insurance Co., Relators, and Sanford Health, Essentia Health … 889 N.W.2d 796 Minn. 2017
Ellen Gianotti v. Independent School District 152 and RAM Mutual Insurance Co., Relators, and Sanford Health, Essentia Health … 889 N.W.2d 796 Minn. 2017
See Gross v. Victoria Station Farms, Inc., -61 (Minn. 1998).
State of Minnesota v. Jeffrey Allen Bachman Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Jeffrey Allen Bachman Minn. Ct. App. 2016
702 provides that an expert may testify “in the form of an opinion” if the expert’s “scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue.” “The knowledge requirement may be satisfied by either formal education or sufficient occupational experience.” Gross v. Victoria Station Farms, Inc.
J. T. S. v. S. L. v. B. Minn. Ct. App. 2015
J. T. S. v. S. L. v. B. Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Gross v. Victoria Station Farms, Inc.
Poppler v. Wright Hennepin Cooperative Electric Ass'n 834 N.W.2d 527 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
Poppler v. Wright Hennepin Cooperative Electric Ass'n 834 N.W.2d 527 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
“The competency of an expert witness to provide [an expert] opinion depends upon both the degree of the witness’s scientific knowledge and the extent of the witness’s practical experience with the subject of the offered opinion.” Gross v. Victoria Station Farms, Inc.
City of Moorhead v. Red River Valley Cooperative Power Ass'n 811 N.W.2d 151 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
City of Moorhead v. Red River Valley Cooperative Power Ass'n 811 N.W.2d 151 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
Gross v. Victoria Station Farms, Inc., -61 (Minn.1998).
Continental Retail, LLC v. County of Hennepin 801 N.W.2d 395 Minn. 2011
Schmitz v. RINKE, NOONAN 783 N.W.2d 733 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
Schmitz v. RINKE, NOONAN 783 N.W.2d 733 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
Gross v. Victoria Station Farms, Inc.
Hayes v. Commissioner of Public Safety 773 N.W.2d 134 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
Hayes v. Commissioner of Public Safety 773 N.W.2d 134 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
“Even if evidence has probative value, it is still within the district court’s discretion to exclude the testimony” because it is “a very deferential standard.” Gross v. Victoria Station Farms, Inc., (citation omitted).
Osborne v. Twin Town Bowl, Inc. 749 N.W.2d 367 Minn. 2008
In Re the Welfare of the Children of J.B. 698 N.W.2d 160 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
In Re the Welfare of the Children of J.B. 698 N.W.2d 160 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
Gross v. Victoria Station Farms, Inc.
State v. Johnson 672 N.W.2d 235 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
State v. Johnson 672 N.W.2d 235 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
Exclusion of Testimony Our review of a district court’s evidentiary ruling on the admissibility of expert testimony is “very deferential.” Gross v. Victoria Station Farms, Inc., -61 (Minn.1998).
Alpha Real Estate Co. of Rochester v. Delta Dental Plan of Minnesota 664 N.W.2d 303 Minn. 2003
Alpha Real Estate Co. of Rochester v. Delta Dental Plan of Minnesota 664 N.W.2d 303 Minn. 2003
Hilligoss v. Cargill, Inc., (stating that district courts have broad discretion in determining jury instructions); Gross v. Victoria Station Farms, Inc., -61 (Minn.1998) (stating that the district court has “considerable” discretion in determining whether to admit an expert opinion).