Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Goeb v. Tharaldson, 615 N.W.2d 800.

104 citing documents.

Admire Benga, et al., Individually and as Parents and Natural Guardians of Adriel Benga, a Minor v. Allina … Minn. Ct. App. 2026
John Donahue v. Robert Donahue, et al Minn. Ct. App. 2026
n.9 (Minn. 2000) (“Because the other issues raised are dispositive of this matter, we do not address this argument.”).
Antonio Ray Seals, Jr., a minor child by his Mother and Natural Guardian Marciana Davis v. Childrens Health … Minn. Ct. App. 2025
State of Minnesota v. Royal Douglas Bissonette Minn. Ct. App. 2024
(holding that the proponent of scientific evidence bears the burden of establishing admissibility).
Jon Huseth, et al., d/b/a Clay View Dairy, LLP v. Goodhue County Cooperative Electric Association on Related Appeal, … Minn. Ct. App. 2024
Deborah Jane Clapp v. Rochelle Cox, in her official capacity as Interim Superintendent of Minneapolis Public Schools, et … Minn. Ct. App. 2023
Deborah Jane Clapp v. Rochelle Cox, in her official capacity as Interim Superintendent of Minneapolis Public Schools, et … Minn. Ct. App. 2023
n.9 (Minn. 2000) (“Because the other issues raised are dispositive of this matter, we do not address [an alternative] argument.”).
In the Matter of the Welfare of: G. V. G., Child Minn. Ct. App. 2023
Makenzie Moore, a minor, by and through her Conservator, First Fiduciary Corporation v. Maple Grove Hospital, Premier OBGYN … Minn. Ct. App. 2023
Glen Brazier, individually and as owner of Wagon Wheel Ridge, Inc., a Minnesota Corporation, et al v. Minnesota … Minn. Ct. App. 2023
n.9 (Minn. 2000) (“Because the other issues raised are dispositive of this matter, we do not address this argument.”).
Henry Hickman v. Keith M. Ellison, A.G., et al Minn. Ct. App. 2023
n.9 (Minn. 2000) (“Because the other issues raised are dispositive of this matter, we do not address this argument.”).
State of Minnesota v. Daniel Saldana Minn. Ct. App. 2023
“Foundational reliability requires the proponent of a test to establish that the test itself is reliable and that its administration in the particular instance conformed to the procedure necessary to ensure reliability.” (quotations omitted).
State of Minnesota, Minn. 2022
A minor, by and through her mother and natural guardian, Amber Nelson v. Fairview Health Services d/b/a/ Fairview … Minn. Ct. App. 2021
When an expert’s opinion involves a scientific test, the judge must confirm “that the test itself is reliable and that its administration in the particular instance conformed to the procedure necessary to ensure reliability.”
State of Minnesota v. Quinten Lavel Osgood, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2021
d 800, 815 (Minn. 2000).
State of Minnesota v. Jay Rodney Richard Clayborne Minn. Ct. App. 2020
State of Minnesota v. Kenny Alan Herold Minn. Ct. App. 2020
Paul & Minneapolis, (explaining that the “underlying reliability, consistency, and accuracy of the theory” of an expert lie at “the heart of the foundational reliability question”); (requiring a proponent of scientific evidence to show that the “methodology used [by the expert] is reliable and in the particular instance produced reliable results”).
Ramsey County Thissen, J. Minn. 2020
Doe, d at 165 (d 800, 814 (Minn. 2000)).
First Baptist Church of St. Paul, et al., Church of St. Pascal Baylon, et al v. City of … Minn. Ct. App. 2019
“The primary function of notice pleading is to give the 8 adverse party fair notice of the theory on which the claim for relief is based.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Latrone Deshone Bailey Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Mark Kedrowski, Minn. 2019
Paul & Minneapolis, (explaining that the “underlying reliability, consistency, and accuracy of the theory” of an expert lie at “the heart of the foundational reliability question”); (requiring a proponent of scientific evidence to show that the “methodology used [by the expert] is reliable and in the part icular instance produced reliable results”).
State v. Harvey 932 N.W.2d 792 Minn. 2019
State v. Harvey 932 N.W.2d 792 Minn. 2019
Goeb v. Tharaldson , , 815 (Minn. 2000) (explaining that whether a particular principle or technique is generally accepted in the relevant scientific field is a question of law that we review de novo).
Donna Delfino v. Medtronic, Inc. Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Minnesota Rule of Evidence 702 provide s that a district court “may” admit expert testimony if the expert’s “ scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue.” “The proponent of scientific evidence has the burden to establish the proper foundation for [its] admissibility.”
In re 3M Bair Hugger Litig. 924 N.W.2d 16 Minn. Ct. App. 2019
In re 3M Bair Hugger Litig. 924 N.W.2d 16 Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Doe v. Archdiocese of Saint Paul and Minneapolis , , 156 (Minn. 2012) ("The Frye -Mack standard governs the admissibility of expert testimony that involves a novel scientific theory.") (quotation omitted); Goeb v. Tharaldson , , 814 (Minn. 2000) (reaffirming Minnesota's adherence to the Frye -Mack general-acceptance standard and rejecting the less-stringent standard set out in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharms., Inc ., 509 U.S. 579 , 589-90, 113 S.Ct.
In the Matter of the Appeal of the Denial of Renewal of Therapeutic Massage License Numbers EMT-13217 and … Minn. Ct. App. 2018
n.9 (Minn. 2000) (“Because the other issues raised are dispositive of this matter, we do not address this argument.”).
Jenella Joyce Conda, as trustee for the heirs and next of kin of Ronald Eugene Conda v. Honeywell … Minn. Ct. App. 2018
(describing requiremen ts of Frye-Mack standard).
Mark Kedrowski v. Lycoming Engines, a division of AVCO Corporation Minn. Ct. App. 2018
And when expert testimony is based on a scientific test, “the proponent of a test [must] establish that the test itself is reliable 12 and that its administration in the particular instance conformed to the procedure necessary to ensure reliability.” (emphasis added) (quotation omitted); see also Gen.
Cindy Ly v. North Memorial Medical Center Minn. Ct. App. 2018
d 800, 814 (Minn. 2000).
State of Minnesota v. Sarar Chan Chhoy Minn. Ct. App. 2017
(stating that, under the Frye-Mack standard, “when novel scientific evidence is offered, the district court must determine whether it is generally accepted in the relevant scien tific community,” and whether “the particular scientific evidence .
Eric N. Nerland v. Kristy Lee Marie Barsch Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Eric N. Nerland v. Kristy Lee Marie Barsch Minn. Ct. App. 2016
(using a “liberal” reading of pleadings when deciding if they give an adverse party fair notice of the theory on which a claimant seeks relief).
State of Minnesota v. Daniel Joel Spiegel Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Daniel Joel Spiegel Minn. Ct. App. 2016
(stating that the proponent of scientific evidence has the burden of establishing its admissibility by demonstrating the relevant requirements).
In the Matter of the Welfare of the Children of: S. E. N. and R. D. J., Jr., … Minn. Ct. App. 2016
In the Matter of the Welfare of the Children of: S. E. N. and R. D. J., Jr., … Minn. Ct. App. 2016
When expert testimony is not based on novel scientific evidence, it must be shown to “be relevant, be given by a witness qualified as an expert, and be helpful to the trier of fact.”
State of Minnesota v. Richard Ellis Hill 871 N.W.2d 900 Minn. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Richard Ellis Hill 871 N.W.2d 900 Minn. 2015
To meet the second prong, the proponent must prove that the generally accepted methodology “produced reliable results in the specific case.” Bailey, d at 397-98 ().
R. Wynn Kearney, Jr., M.D. v. The Orthopaedic and Fracture Clinic, P.A., vs. Steven B. Curtis, et al, … Minn. Ct. App. 2015
R. Wynn Kearney, Jr., M.D. v. The Orthopaedic and Fracture Clinic, P.A., vs. Steven B. Curtis, et al, … Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Pro-T, LLC v. C O Brown Agency, Inc. d/b/a Lawrence-Bohmbach Insurance Agency, a “Trusted Source” Independent Insurance Agency, … Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Pro-T, LLC v. C O Brown Agency, Inc. d/b/a Lawrence-Bohmbach Insurance Agency, a “Trusted Source” Independent Insurance Agency, … Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Jay Dean Uldrych Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Jay Dean Uldrych Minn. Ct. App. 2015
In the Matter of the Civil Commitment of: Stephen Danforth, a/k/a Stephen Rabideau Minn. Ct. App. 2014
In the Matter of the Civil Commitment of: Stephen Danforth, a/k/a Stephen Rabideau Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Royal Jay Toney v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Phillip Anthony Roberts v. State of Minnesota 856 N.W.2d 287 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Royal Jay Toney v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2014
(holding that the proponent of scientific evidence has the burden of establishing its admissibility by establishing the relevant requirements).