Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Patton v. Newmar Corp., 538 N.W.2d 116.

73 citing documents.

Yath v. Fairview Clinics, N. P. 767 N.W.2d 34 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
Foss v. Kincade 766 N.W.2d 317 Minn. 2009
Foss v. Kincade 766 N.W.2d 317 Minn. 2009
(citing Dillon v. Nissan Motor Co., 986 F.2d 263, 267 (8th Cir.1993)).
Hoeft v. Hennepin County 754 N.W.2d 717 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
Hoeft v. Hennepin County 754 N.W.2d 717 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
-19 (Minn.1995) (affirming, in a spoliation case, the “sanction” of the exclusion of expert testimony regarding automobile that had since been destroyed).
Foss v. Kincade 746 N.W.2d 912 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
Foss v. Kincade 746 N.W.2d 912 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
When a spoliation issue is raised, “the trial court is not only empowered, but is obligated to determine the consequences of the evidentiary loss.”
Posey v. Fossen 707 N.W.2d 712 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
Posey v. Fossen 707 N.W.2d 712 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
The party challenging the district court’s exercise of discretion has the burden of proof — “a burden which is met only when it is clear that no reasonable person would agree [with] the trial court’s assessment [of sanctions].” (quoting Marrocco v. Gen’l Motors Corp., 966 F.2d 220 , 223 (7th Cir. 1992)).
Foust v. McFairland 698 N.W.2d 24 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
Foust v. McFairland 698 N.W.2d 24 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
State Farm Fire & Casualty v. Aquila Inc. 697 N.W.2d 636 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
State Farm Fire & Casualty v. Aquila Inc. 697 N.W.2d 636 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
-20 (Minn.1995) (holding the district court properly .granted summary judgment when plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case of liability); Trudeau v. Sina Contracting Co., 241 Minn. 79, 87 , (defining prima facie negligence).
Wajda v. Kingsbury 652 N.W.2d 856 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
Wajda v. Kingsbury 652 N.W.2d 856 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
Hoffman v. Ford Motor Co. 587 N.W.2d 66 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
Hoffman v. Ford Motor Co. 587 N.W.2d 66 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
Jennie-O Foods, Inc. v. Safe-Glo Products Corp. 582 N.W.2d 576 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
Jennie-O Foods, Inc. v. Safe-Glo Products Corp. 582 N.W.2d 576 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
A. Expert opinion evidence Gillis argues that the trial court should have excluded testimony of Jennie-O’s expert because the items about which he testified were not available for Gillis’s experts’ inspection, -18 (Minn.1995) (excluding plaintiffs expert testimony because plaintiffs expert had removed and lost some components of the evidence before defendant’s expert saw them).
Landview Landscaping, Inc. v. Minnehaha Creek Watershed District 569 N.W.2d 237 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
Landview Landscaping, Inc. v. Minnehaha Creek Watershed District 569 N.W.2d 237 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
P. 56.05; (nonmoving party must present specific facts demonstrating existence of genuine issue of material fact).
Himes v. Woodings-Verona Tool Works, Inc. 565 N.W.2d 469 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
Himes v. Woodings-Verona Tool Works, Inc. 565 N.W.2d 469 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
The trial court, which had been decided after the retired judge’s ruling, granted both motions and the case was dismissed.