Cited by

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

104 citing documents.

Phillip Anthony Roberts v. State of Minnesota 856 N.W.2d 287 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
P. 11.02, .04 (2004) (allowing the defendant to demand an omnibus hearing on evidentiary issues); (stating that “the particular scientific evidence in each case must be shown to have foundational reliability” and that the proponent of a scientific test must “establish that the test itself is reliable and that its administration in the particular instance conformed to the procedure necessary t
Commonwealth Land Title Insurance Company v. Historic Ivy Tower, LLC Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Commonwealth Land Title Insurance Company v. Historic Ivy Tower, LLC Minn. Ct. App. 2014
(“[T]he pleading of broad, general statements that may be conclusory is permitted, and pleadings need not allege facts to support every element of a cause of action.”).
Poppler v. Wright Hennepin Cooperative Electric Ass'n 834 N.W.2d 527 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
Poppler v. Wright Hennepin Cooperative Electric Ass'n 834 N.W.2d 527 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
State v. Dixon 822 N.W.2d 664 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
State v. Dixon 822 N.W.2d 664 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
814 (Minn.2000) (reaffirming Minnesota’s adherence to the Frye-Mack standard).
Doe v. Archdiocese of Saint Paul & Minneapolis 817 N.W.2d 150 Minn. 2012
Doe v. Archdiocese of Saint Paul & Minneapolis 817 N.W.2d 150 Minn. 2012
State v. Tanksley 809 N.W.2d 706 Minn. 2012
State v. Tanksley 809 N.W.2d 706 Minn. 2012
State v. Obeta 796 N.W.2d 282 Minn. 2011
State v. Obeta 796 N.W.2d 282 Minn. 2011
702; -10 (Minn.2000) (articulating the Frye-Mack standard).
Rios v. Jennie-O Turkey Store, Inc. 793 N.W.2d 309 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
Rios v. Jennie-O Turkey Store, Inc. 793 N.W.2d 309 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
The Minnesota Supreme Court has held that, “in the furtherance of justice, pleadings are to be liberally construed,” Milner, d at 618 (quotation omitted), and that “[t]he primary function of notice pleading is to give the adverse party fair notice of the theory on which the claim for relief is based,”
State v. Edstrom 792 N.W.2d 105 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
State v. Edstrom 792 N.W.2d 105 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
Ill “The standard of review of admissibility determinations under Frye-Mack is two-pronged.”
State v. Loving 775 N.W.2d 872 Minn. 2009
State v. Loving 775 N.W.2d 872 Minn. 2009
Second, the court must determine whether the novel scientific evidence offered is shown to have foundational reliability.” () (citations omitted).
State v. Ali 775 N.W.2d 914 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
State v. Ali 775 N.W.2d 914 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
Hayes v. Commissioner of Public Safety 773 N.W.2d 134 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
Hayes v. Commissioner of Public Safety 773 N.W.2d 134 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
State v. Cram 718 N.W.2d 898 Minn. 2006
State v. Cram 718 N.W.2d 898 Minn. 2006
Assuming this speculative theory was even admissible, -816 (Minn.2000) (discussing standard for admission of expert testimony), at best, this evidence is "doubtful,” and as such, it would not warrant granting Cram relief under the newly discovered evidence standard.
Rush v. Jostock 710 N.W.2d 570 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
Rush v. Jostock 710 N.W.2d 570 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
State v. MacLennan 702 N.W.2d 219 Minn. 2005
State v. MacLennan 702 N.W.2d 219 Minn. 2005
Anderson v. State, Department of Natural Resources 693 N.W.2d 181 Minn. 2005
Anderson v. State, Department of Natural Resources 693 N.W.2d 181 Minn. 2005
filed, 73 USLW 3076 (July 16, 2004, no. 04-81); (negligent misrepresentation and negligent testing claims not preempted).
McDonough v. Allina Health System 685 N.W.2d 688 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
McDonough v. Allina Health System 685 N.W.2d 688 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
State v. Bailey 677 N.W.2d 380 Minn. 2004
State v. Bailey 677 N.W.2d 380 Minn. 2004
State v. Jones 678 N.W.2d 1 Minn. 2004
State v. Jones 678 N.W.2d 1 Minn. 2004
Peterson v. BASF Corp. 675 N.W.2d 57 Minn. 2004
Peterson v. BASF Corp. 675 N.W.2d 57 Minn. 2004
we analyzed the issue of FIFRA preemption with regard to common law tort actions arising out of injuries after exposure to insecticides.
State v. Pirsig 670 N.W.2d 610 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
State v. Pirsig 670 N.W.2d 610 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
Ray v. Miller Meester Advertising, Inc. 664 N.W.2d 355 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
Ray v. Miller Meester Advertising, Inc. 664 N.W.2d 355 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
Peterson v. BASF Corp. 657 N.W.2d 853 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
Peterson v. BASF Corp. 657 N.W.2d 853 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
State v. Traylor 656 N.W.2d 885 Minn. 2003
State v. Traylor 656 N.W.2d 885 Minn. 2003
State v. DeShay 645 N.W.2d 185 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
State v. DeShay 645 N.W.2d 185 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
5 the supreme court, in affirming the continued application of the Frye-Mack test in Minnesota, stated that “when novel scientific evidence is offered, the district court must determine whether it is generally accepted in the relevant scientific community.” (Emphasis added.)
State v. Traylor 641 N.W.2d 335 Minn. Ct. App. 2002