DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Getchell v. Hill, 21 Minn. 464.

52 citing documents.

  • Blatz v. Allina Health System 622 N.W.2d 376 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
  • Blatz v. Allina Health System 622 N.W.2d 376 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
    Co., (insurance agents); Gammel v. Ernst & Ernst, 245 Minn. 249, 253 , (accountants); Harris v. Wood, 214 Minn. 492, 498 , -22 (1943) (dentists); Getchell v. Hill, 21 Minn. 464, 464 (1875) (medical doctors).
  • City of Eveleth v. Ruble 225 N.W.2d 521 Minn. 1974
  • City of Eveleth v. Ruble 225 N.W.2d 521 Minn. 1974
    Gamble, 198 Minn. 7 , Quickstad v. Tavenner, 196 Minn. 125 , Getchell v. Hill, 21 Minn. 464 (1875) (medical doctors).
  • Christy v. Saliterman 179 N.W.2d 288 Minn. 1970
  • Christy v. Saliterman 179 N.W.2d 288 Minn. 1970
    Getchell v. Hill, 21 Minn. 464, 465 .
  • Schulz v. Feigal 142 N.W.2d 84 Minn. 1966
  • Schulz v. Feigal 142 N.W.2d 84 Minn. 1966
    In such a case, “the mode of treatment having been shown, the practical common sense of the jury will enable them to determine that the injury or failure of cure is owing to unskilful or negligent treatment.” Getchell v. Hill, 21 Minn. 464, 465 .
  • Miller v. Raaen 139 N.W.2d 877 Minn. 1966
  • Miller v. Raaen 139 N.W.2d 877 Minn. 1966
    As said in Getchell v. Hill, 21 Minn. 464 : ‘There may be cases where, the mode of treatment having been shown, the practical common sense of the jury will enable them to determine that the injury or failure of cure is due to unskilful or negligent treatment.’ ” Thus it has been held that recovery without expert testimony may be permitted, as where metal clip
  • Jensen v. Linner 108 N.W.2d 705 Minn. 1961
  • Jensen v. Linner 108 N.W.2d 705 Minn. 1961
    Getchell v. Hill, 21 Minn. 464 .
  • Kundiger v. Prudential Insurance Co. of America 17 N.W.2d 49 Minn. 1944
  • Kundiger v. Prudential Insurance Co. of America 17 N.W.2d 49 Minn. 1944
    And see, Getchell v. Hill, 21 Minn. 464, 465 .
  • Quickstad v. Tavenner 264 N.W. 436 Minn. 1936
  • Quickstad v. Tavenner 264 N.W. 436 Minn. 1936
    In Harju v. Allen, 146 Minn. 23, 25 , , the involved treatment was “admittedly improper.” We recognized there, following Getchell v. Hill, 21 Minn. 464, 465 , that “there may be cases where, the mode of treatment having been shown,” the jury may properly determine that the injury or failure to cure was due to unskilful or negligent treatment.
  • Ellering v. Gross 248 N.W. 330 Minn. 1933
  • Ellering v. Gross 248 N.W. 330 Minn. 1933
    This was stated in Getchell v. Hill, 21 Minn. 464 , and has since been recognized, as shown by the citations in Bush v. Cress, 181 Minn. 590 , .
  • Bush v. Cress 233 N.W. 317 Minn. 1930
  • Bush v. Cress 233 N.W. 317 Minn. 1930
    Harju v. Allen, 146 Minn. 23 , ; Getchell v. Hill, 21 Minn. 464 ; Moehlenbrock v. Parke, Davis & Co. 145 Minn. 100 , ; Fowler v. Scheldrup, 166 Minn. 164 , .
  • Korman v. Hagen 206 N.W. 650 Minn. 1925
  • Korman v. Hagen 206 N.W. 650 Minn. 1925
    cept that in one sentence there was the improper use of the word “all” instead of the word “ordinary.” That this was a mere inadvertent use of a wrong word is so apparent from what immediately followed that it may not be doubted that the jury got clearly and definitely the accurate test by which to determine defendant’s professional conduct, as approved in our cases from that of Getchell v. Hill, 21 Minn. 464 , to Lorenz v. Lerche, 157 Minn. 437 , .
  • Berkholz v. Benepe 190 N.W. 800 Minn. 1922
  • Berkholz v. Benepe 190 N.W. 800 Minn. 1922
    Getcliell v. Hill, 21 Minn. 464 ; Martin v. Courtney, 75 Minn. 255 , ; Staloch v. Holm, 100 Minn. 276 , Ill N. W. 264, 9 L. R. A. (N. S.) 712; McGray v. Cobb, 130 Minn. 434 , , ; Viita v. Fleming, 132 Minn. 128 , , L. R. A. 1916D, 644, Ann. Cas.
  • Clark v. George 180 N.W. 1011 Minn. 1921
  • Clark v. George 180 N.W. 1011 Minn. 1921
    Getchell v. Hill, 21 Minn. 464 ; Martin v. Courtney, 75 Minn. 255 , ; Staloch v. Holm, 100 Minn. 276 , , 9 L.R.A.(N.S.)
  • Harju v. Allen 177 N.W. 1015 Minn. 1920
  • Harju v. Allen 177 N.W. 1015 Minn. 1920
    As said in Getchell v. Hill, 21 Minn. 464 : “There may be cases where, the mode of treatment having been shown, the practical common sense of the jury will enable them to determine that the injury or failure of cure is due to unskilful or negligent treatment.” It is not difficult to hold that there was evidence of -malpractice in this case.
  • Moehlenbrock v. Parke, Davis & Co. 176 N.W. 169 Minn. 1920
  • Moehlenbrock v. Parke, Davis & Co. 176 N.W. 169 Minn. 1920
    Getchell v. Hill, 21 Minn. 464 ; Martin v. Courtney, 75 Minn. 255 , .
  • Nelson v. Farrish 173 N.W. 715 Minn. 1919
  • Nelson v. Farrish 173 N.W. 715 Minn. 1919
    Getchell v. Hill, 21 Minn. 464 .
  • Viita v. Fleming 155 N.W. 1077 Minn. 1916
  • Viita v. Fleming 155 N.W. 1077 Minn. 1916
    Getchell v. Hill, 21 Minn. 464 ; Martin v. Courtney, 75 Minn. 255 , ; 87 Minn. 197 , ; Henslin v. Wheaton, 91 Minn. 219 , , 64 L.R.A.
  • McGray v. Cobb 152 N.W. 262 Minn. 1915
  • McGray v. Cobb 152 N.W. 262 Minn. 1915
    Getchell v. Hill, 21 Minn. 464 ; Staloch v. Holm, 100 Minn. 276, 281 , , 9 L.R.A.
  • Owens v. Chicago Great Western Railroad 128 N.W. 1011 Minn. 1910
  • Owens v. Chicago Great Western Railroad 128 N.W. 1011 Minn. 1910
    Co., 54 Minn. 504 , ; Scarlotta v. Ash, 95 Minn. 240 , ; Getchell v. Hill, 21 Minn. 464 ; Anderson v. Fielding, 92 Minn. 42 , , 104 Am.
  • Crozier v. Minneapolis Street Railway Co. 118 N.W. 256 Minn. 1908
  • Crozier v. Minneapolis Street Railway Co. 118 N.W. 256 Minn. 1908
    In Getchell v. Hill, 21 Minn. 464 , the court said: “This form of question is not obnoxious to the objection that it calls on the witness to decide any question of fact; for the purpose of basing the opinion on it.
  • Staloch v. Holm 111 N.W. 264 Minn. 1907
  • Staloch v. Holm 111 N.W. 264 Minn. 1907
    See Gilfillan, C. J., in Getchell v. Hill, 21 Minn. 464, 471 , and Mitchell, J., in Martin v. Courtney, 75 Minn. 255, 261 , .
  • Martin v. Courtney 91 N.W. 487 Minn. 1902
  • Martin v. Courtney 91 N.W. 487 Minn. 1902
    Getchell v. Hill, 21 Minn. 464 ; Martin v. Courtney, 75 Minn. 255 , .
  • Martin v. Walter Courtney 77 N.W. 813 Minn. 1899
  • Martin v. Walter Courtney 77 N.W. 813 Minn. 1899
    Getchell v. Hill, 21 Minn. 464 .
  • Beardsley v. Minneapolis Street Railway Co. 56 N.W. 176 Minn. 1893
  • Beardsley v. Minneapolis Street Railway Co. 56 N.W. 176 Minn. 1893
    This was permissible, we think, under the rule laid down in McNaghten’s Case, 10 Clark & F. 200, adopted and followed by this court in Getchell v. Hill, 21 Minn. 464 , and State v. Lautenschlager, 22 Minn. 514 .
  • In re the Probate of the Will of Storer 8 N.W. 827 Minn. 1881
  • In re the Probate of the Will of Storer 8 N.W. 827 Minn. 1881
    Getchell v. Hill, 21 Minn. 464 ; State v. Lautenschlager, 22 Minn. 514 .