Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Lundgren v. Eustermann, 370 N.W.2d 877.

50 citing documents.

Jolene Luczak v. St. Mary's Medical Center Minn. Ct. App. 2024
Jolene Luczak v. St. Mary's Medical Center Minn. Ct. App. 2024
This foundation is “best supplied if the expert witness is also a physician, especially a physician in the same area of practice [as the defendant], but this need not always be so.” see also Koch v. Mork Clinic, P.A., (“[A] medical expert need not have a specialty, experience, or a position identical to a medical defendant.”), rev. denied (Minn. Jan.
Suzanne Stephens, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
n. 1 (Minn. 1985) (providing that, “in addition to the pleadings, affidavits and depositions, the [district] court in deciding a motion may consider oral testimony, facts subject to judicial notice, stipulations, concessions of counsel, and any other material that would be admissible in evidence or otherwise
Joseph Kurian, individually, and as Trustee for Samael Alessandro Ittyerah, deceased, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
Jessica Hagen, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, Minn. 2021
but must present specific facts showing that there is an issue for trial on the merits.” Eakman v. Brutger , (“ It is incumbent on the party opposing a summary judgment motion made on depositions or affidavits to counter with sufficient specific facts to raise a jury issue.”).
Samson Longtin, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
Banking, a Div. of Norwest Funding, Inc., (citing Lundgren v. Eustermann , and Thiele v. Stich , 11 ), aff’d in part, rev ’d in part
Patricia J. Marquardt, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
In support of this, appellants point to Lundgren v. Eustermann , for the proposition th at Dr. Stark’s admission to reading about ADEM and PRES in preparation for trial supports the conclusion that he was unqualified to testify about them.
Harstad v. City of Woodbury 902 N.W.2d 64 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Harstad v. City of Woodbury 902 N.W.2d 64 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
881 n.1 (Minn. 1985) (stating that a district court in deciding a summary-judgment motion “may consider oral testimony ...
Montemayor v. Sebright Products, Inc. 898 N.W.2d 623 Minn. 2017
State ex rel. Swanson v. Integrity Advance, LLC 846 N.W.2d 435 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State ex rel. Swanson v. Integrity Advance, LLC 846 N.W.2d 435 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
other material that would be admissible in evidence or otherwise usable at trial.” , 881 n. 1 (Minn.1985).
Beck v. County of Todd 824 N.W.2d 636 Minn. 2013
Beck v. County of Todd 824 N.W.2d 636 Minn. 2013
See, (stating that practical knowledge or experience, and not mere theoretical expertise, is necessary to establish the qualifications of a physician to testify as an expert witness in a medical malpractice case); see also 11 Peter N. Thompson, Minnesota Practice — Evidence § 702.03 (4th ed. 2012)(“Minnesot
Donnelly Bros. Construction Co. v. State Auto Property & Casualty Insurance Co. 759 N.W.2d 651 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
Donnelly Bros. Construction Co. v. State Auto Property & Casualty Insurance Co. 759 N.W.2d 651 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
Monson v. Rochester Athlectic Club 759 N.W.2d 60 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
Monson v. Rochester Athlectic Club 759 N.W.2d 60 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
P. 56.03 (requiring summary judgment to be based on admissible evidence), , 881 n. 1 (Minn. 1985) (providing that, "in addition to the pleadings, affidavits and depositions, the [district] court in deciding a motion may consider oral testimony, facts subject to judicial notice, stipulations, concessions of counsel, and any other material that would be admissible in evidence or otherwise usa
Becker v. Mayo Foundation 737 N.W.2d 200 Minn. 2007
Becker v. Mayo Foundation 737 N.W.2d 200 Minn. 2007
Noske v. Friedberg 713 N.W.2d 866 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
Noske v. Friedberg 713 N.W.2d 866 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
-81 (Minn.1985) (holding that when psychologist had- no practical experience or knowledge of what physicians do, he was not competent to give an opinion on the standard of medical care or departure from that standard).
Duluth Superior Erection, Inc. v. Concrete Restorers, Inc. 665 N.W.2d 528 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
Duluth Superior Erection, Inc. v. Concrete Restorers, Inc. 665 N.W.2d 528 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
Hoover v. Norwest Private Mortgage Banking 605 N.W.2d 757 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
Hoover v. Norwest Private Mortgage Banking 605 N.W.2d 757 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
(holding that unsworn letter from doctor part of record on summary judgment motion).
Wall v. Fairview Hospital & Healthcare Services 584 N.W.2d 395 Minn. 1998
Wall v. Fairview Hospital & Healthcare Services 584 N.W.2d 395 Minn. 1998
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
See, e.g., *530 -25 (Minn.1993) (excluding cardiologist’s testimony about ordering a procedure when he stated he did not know about its current use); (holding psychologist who never prescribed a drug or consulted with others was incompetent to testify about standard of care for prescribing it).
Donaldson v. Young Women's Christian Ass'n of Duluth 526 N.W.2d 215 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
Donaldson v. Young Women's Christian Ass'n of Duluth 526 N.W.2d 215 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
(“technical” defect does not necessarily preclude consideration of evidence).
Midway National Bank v. Estate of Bollmeier 504 N.W.2d 59 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
Midway National Bank v. Estate of Bollmeier 504 N.W.2d 59 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
the estate argues Deutsch was not qualified to testify as an expert on Nancy’s projected need for future personal care services because Deutsch was not a medical doctor.
Admiral Merchants Motor Freight, Inc. v. O'Connor & Hannan 494 N.W.2d 261 Minn. 1992
Admiral Merchants Motor Freight, Inc. v. O'Connor & Hannan 494 N.W.2d 261 Minn. 1992
Fiedler v. Spoelhof 483 N.W.2d 486 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
Fiedler v. Spoelhof 483 N.W.2d 486 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
State, Department of Human Rights v. Hibbing Taconite Co. 482 N.W.2d 504 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
State, Department of Human Rights v. Hibbing Taconite Co. 482 N.W.2d 504 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
Lloyd F. Smith Co., Inc. v. Den-Tal-Ez 478 N.W.2d 510 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
Lloyd F. Smith Co., Inc. v. Den-Tal-Ez 478 N.W.2d 510 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
Kasson State Bank v. Haugen 410 N.W.2d 392 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Kasson State Bank v. Haugen 410 N.W.2d 392 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Bauer v. Friedland 394 N.W.2d 549 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Bauer v. Friedland 394 N.W.2d 549 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Ouellette Ex Rel. Ouellette v. Subak 391 N.W.2d 810 Minn. 1986
Ouellette Ex Rel. Ouellette v. Subak 391 N.W.2d 810 Minn. 1986
In claiming Dr. Smith’s testimonial incompetency to testify on the issue of causation, where we did emphasize that a witness testifying as an expert must have some practical knowledge or experience.
Lewis v. Equitable Life Assurance Society of the United States 389 N.W.2d 876 Minn. 1986
Lewis v. Equitable Life Assurance Society of the United States 389 N.W.2d 876 Minn. 1986