Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Reinhardt v. Colton, 337 N.W.2d 88.

100 citing documents.

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
Uselman v. Uselman 464 N.W.2d 130 Minn. 1990
Uselman v. Uselman 464 N.W.2d 130 Minn. 1990
Benson v. Northern Gopher Enterprises, Inc. 455 N.W.2d 444 Minn. 1990
Benson v. Northern Gopher Enterprises, Inc. 455 N.W.2d 444 Minn. 1990
Computer Tool & Engineering, Inc. v. Northern States Power Co. 453 N.W.2d 569 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
Computer Tool & Engineering, Inc. v. Northern States Power Co. 453 N.W.2d 569 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
In doing so, we must accept as true all evidence in a light favorable to the nonmoving party and affirm the order only “where (1) in light of the evidence as a whole, it would clearly be the duty of the trial court to set aside a contrary verdict as being manifestly against the entire evidence, or where (2) it would be contrary to the law applicable to the case.” (quoting J.N.
Montgomery Ward & Co. v. County of Hennepin 450 N.W.2d 299 Minn. 1990
Montgomery Ward & Co. v. County of Hennepin 450 N.W.2d 299 Minn. 1990
See, Welfare of R.L.K., , 371 (Minn.1978).
Benson v. NORTHERN GOPHER ENTERPRISES 446 N.W.2d 678 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Benson v. NORTHERN GOPHER ENTERPRISES 446 N.W.2d 678 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Reinhardt v. *680 Colton, Walton v. Jones, 286 N,W.2d 710, 713 (Minn.1979).
Molkenbur v. Hart 411 N.W.2d 249 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Molkenbur v. Hart 411 N.W.2d 249 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Pratt Ex Rel. Pratt v. University of Minnesota Affiliated Hospitals & Clinics 403 N.W.2d 865 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Pratt Ex Rel. Pratt v. University of Minnesota Affiliated Hospitals & Clinics 403 N.W.2d 865 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Kalsbeck v. Westview Clinic, P.A., pet.
Bush v. Winter 402 N.W.2d 229 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Bush v. Winter 402 N.W.2d 229 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Hille v. County of Wright 400 N.W.2d 744 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Hille v. County of Wright 400 N.W.2d 744 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
(pathologist could not testify on methods of treatment).
Hoven v. Rice Memorial Hospital 396 N.W.2d 569 Minn. 1986
Hoven v. Rice Memorial Hospital 396 N.W.2d 569 Minn. 1986
Law v. Essick Manufacturing Co. 396 N.W.2d 883 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Law v. Essick Manufacturing Co. 396 N.W.2d 883 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
See, Swanson v. Chatterton, 281 Minn. 129
Tews v. Husqvarna, Inc. 390 N.W.2d 363 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Tews v. Husqvarna, Inc. 390 N.W.2d 363 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Goodrich v. McCannel 382 N.W.2d 235 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Goodrich v. McCannel 382 N.W.2d 235 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Plutshack, d at 9 ; -641 (Minn.1980).
Riewe v. Arnesen 381 N.W.2d 448 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Riewe v. Arnesen 381 N.W.2d 448 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Clark v. Miller 378 N.W.2d 838 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Clark v. Miller 378 N.W.2d 838 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Adams v. Nystrom 373 N.W.2d 666 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Adams v. Nystrom 373 N.W.2d 666 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Appellants correctly state that a defendant’s expert can be used to establish malpractice, citing Anderson v. Florence, 288 Minn. 351 , *668 (1970).
Sylvester v. Gleason 371 N.W.2d 573 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Sylvester v. Gleason 371 N.W.2d 573 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Citizen's National Bank of Willmar v. Taylor 368 N.W.2d 913 Minn. 1985
Citizen's National Bank of Willmar v. Taylor 368 N.W.2d 913 Minn. 1985
Garner v. Todd 361 N.W.2d 459 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Garner v. Todd 361 N.W.2d 459 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Hall v. Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul & Pacific Railroad 357 N.W.2d 141 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Hall v. Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul & Pacific Railroad 357 N.W.2d 141 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Gordon Employment, Inc. v. Jewell 356 N.W.2d 738 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Gordon Employment, Inc. v. Jewell 356 N.W.2d 738 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Haas v. Gaviser 348 N.W.2d 406 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Haas v. Gaviser 348 N.W.2d 406 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
A trial court should determine the competency of a witness to provide expert medical testimony by examining “both the degree of the witness’ scientific knowledge and the extent of the witness’ practical experience with the matter which is the subject of the offered testimony.”
Wohlfeil v. Murray MacHinery, Inc. 344 N.W.2d 869 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Wohlfeil v. Murray MacHinery, Inc. 344 N.W.2d 869 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Recognizing the broad discretion trial courts have on matters relating to expert testimony, , 92 n. 1 (Minn.1983), we cannot say the trial court abused its discretion in excluding the opinion.