Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Benson v. Northern Gopher Enterprises, Inc., 455 N.W.2d 444.

38 citing documents.

John August Krueger, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
See 1300 Nicollet, LLC v. County of Hennepin , (“A [district] court has discretion to grant or deny discovery requests, so we review these decisions under an abuse of discretion standard.”); Benson v. N. Gopher Enters., Inc., (“It has long been the law in this state that evidentiary rulings, including a decision to exclude expert testimony, lie within the sound discretion of 2 The difficulty in identifying the precise rulings that Krueger challenges is amplified by his failure to brief “the appl
A21-1356 Minn. Ct. App. 2022
“These determinations ‘demand a case by case analysis’ that is ‘best left to the trial judge familiar with the setting of the case.’” (quoting Benson v. N. Gopher Enters., Inc., ).
Patricia J. Marquardt, Minn. 2020
When exercising its discretion, the district court has “wide latitude in determining whether there is sufficient foundation upon which an expert may state an opinion.” Benson v. N. Gopher Enters ., Inc., d 444, 446 (Minn. 1990).
Donna Delfino, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Gopher Enters ., Inc. , -46 (Minn. 1990).
Jane Doe v. Kmart Corporation Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Suncom, LLC v. Robert Feuling d/b/a West Side Liquors of Sartell, LLC, and West Side Liquors of Sartell, … Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Suncom, LLC v. Robert Feuling d/b/a West Side Liquors of Sartell, LLC, and West Side Liquors of Sartell, … Minn. Ct. App. 2017
testimony, lie within the sound discretion of the district court.” Benson v. N. Gopher Enters., Inc.
Jane Doe v. Kmart Corporation Minn. Ct. App. 2017
P. 56.05 (requiring affidavits on personal knowledge in response to summary judgment); Benson v. N. Gopher Enters., Inc., (affirming summary judgment based on district court’s determination that plaintiff’s expert testimony lacked foundation).
Jane Doe 136 v. Ralph Liebsch 872 N.W.2d 875 Minn. 2015
Jane Doe 136 v. Ralph Liebsch 872 N.W.2d 875 Minn. 2015
“[B]y their very nature, evidentiary rules demand a case by case analysis, an analysis best left to the trial judge familiar with the ‘setting’ of the case.” Benson v. N. Gopher Enters., Inc.
McDonough v. Allina Health System 685 N.W.2d 688 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
McDonough v. Allina Health System 685 N.W.2d 688 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
“[Ejvidentiary rulings, including a decision to exclude expert testimony, lie within the sound discretion of the [district] court.”
Maus v. Galic 669 N.W.2d 38 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
Maus v. Galic 669 N.W.2d 38 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
See, -46 (Minn.1990) (stating that trial judge is given wide latitude in its analysis of evidentiary rules due to its familiarity with case setting.
Teffeteller v. University of Minnesota 645 N.W.2d 420 Minn. 2002
Teffeteller v. University of Minnesota 645 N.W.2d 420 Minn. 2002
Gross v. Victoria Station Farms, Inc., see also Benson v. N. Gopher Enters., Inc., -46 (Minn.1990).
Citizens for a Safe Grant v. Lone Oak Sportsmen's Club, Inc. 624 N.W.2d 796 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
Citizens for a Safe Grant v. Lone Oak Sportsmen's Club, Inc. 624 N.W.2d 796 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
Benson v. Northern Gopher Enters., Inc., (“Even if this' court would have reached a different conclusion as to the sufficiency of the foundation, the decision of the trial [court] judge will not be *808 reversed absent clear abuse of discretion.” (citation omitted)).
Gopher Oil Co. v. American Hardware Mutual Insurance Co. 588 N.W.2d 756 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
Gopher Oil Co. v. American Hardware Mutual Insurance Co. 588 N.W.2d 756 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
Benson v. Northern Gopher Enters., Inc., (evidentiary rulings committed to sound discretion of district court).
Gross v. Victoria Station Farms, Inc. 578 N.W.2d 757 Minn. 1998
Gross v. Victoria Station Farms, Inc. 578 N.W.2d 757 Minn. 1998
Benson v. Northern Gopher Enters., Inc., -46 (Minn.1990).
Steiner v. Beaudry Oil & Service, Inc. 545 N.W.2d 39 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
Steiner v. Beaudry Oil & Service, Inc. 545 N.W.2d 39 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
-46 (Minn.1990) (trial court has wide latitude to determine whether sufficient foundation exists for witness to state opinion).
Koch v. Mork Clinic, P.A. 540 N.W.2d 526 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
Koch v. Mork Clinic, P.A. 540 N.W.2d 526 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
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, (indicating that trial court excluded expert testimony pursuant to Minn. R.Evid.
Sherman v. Marden 525 N.W.2d 550 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
Sherman v. Marden 525 N.W.2d 550 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
Hempel v. Fairview Hospitals & Healthcare Services, Inc. 504 N.W.2d 487 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
Hempel v. Fairview Hospitals & Healthcare Services, Inc. 504 N.W.2d 487 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
Williams v. Wadsworth 503 N.W.2d 120 Minn. 1993
Williams v. Wadsworth 503 N.W.2d 120 Minn. 1993
See Benson v. Northern Gopher Enterprises, Inc.
Matter of Grafstrom 490 N.W.2d 632 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
Matter of Grafstrom 490 N.W.2d 632 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
ZumBerge v. Northern States Power Co. 481 N.W.2d 103 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
ZumBerge v. Northern States Power Co. 481 N.W.2d 103 Minn. Ct. App. 1992