Cited by
Opinions in Minnesota that cite Alholm v. Wilt, 394 N.W.2d 488.
- State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. v. Short 448 N.W.2d 560 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
- State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. v. Short 448 N.W.2d 560 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
- Hunt v. Regents of University 446 N.W.2d 400 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
-
Hunt v. Regents of University
446 N.W.2d 400
Minn. Ct. App. 1989
applies in our analysis of Minn.Stat.
- Omnetics, Inc. v. Radiant Technology Corp. 440 N.W.2d 177 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
- Omnetics, Inc. v. Radiant Technology Corp. 440 N.W.2d 177 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
- Ruberg v. State 428 N.W.2d 488 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
- Ruberg v. State 428 N.W.2d 488 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
- Leonard v. Parrish 420 N.W.2d 629 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
- Leonard v. Parrish 420 N.W.2d 629 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
- Senf v. Bolluyt 419 N.W.2d 645 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
-
Senf v. Bolluyt
419 N.W.2d 645
Minn. Ct. App. 1988
(reversal will not follow if a party simply would have preferred other language “provided the court’s instruction appropriately stated the law”).
- Bianchi v. Nordby 409 N.W.2d 835 Minn. 1987
-
Bianchi v. Nordby
409 N.W.2d 835
Minn. 1987
More recently, this court has stated that reversal will not follow if a party simply would have preferred other language “provided the court’s instruction appropriately stated the law.”
- State v. Alladin 408 N.W.2d 642 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
-
State v. Alladin
408 N.W.2d 642
Minn. Ct. App. 1987
for rev. denied (Minn. April 12, 1985) (no prejudice shown where appellant failed to use peremptory strike to remove challenged juror); , 494 n. 10 (Minn.1986) (in discussing the applicability of Stufflebean requirement that actual prejudice be shown, court noted that in Stufflebean appellant had an unused peremptory challenge but failed to exercise it to strike a prospective juror).
- Kallio v. Ford Motor Co. 407 N.W.2d 92 Minn. 1987
-
Kallio v. Ford Motor Co.
407 N.W.2d 92
Minn. 1987
As we have stated, such emphasis “is properly the function of counsel in closing argument, not by the court in its instructions.”