Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Koehler v. Cleary, 23 Minn. 325.

27 citing documents.

State v. Schifsky 69 N.W.2d 89 Minn. 1955
State v. Schifsky 69 N.W.2d 89 Minn. 1955
Chalmers v. Whittemore, 22 Minn. 305 ; Koehler v. Cleary, 23 Minn. 325 ; Moran v. N. P. Ry.
Bisping v. Kummer Auto Co. 277 N.W. 255 Minn. 1938
Bisping v. Kummer Auto Co. 277 N.W. 255 Minn. 1938
Koehler v. Cleary, 23 Minn. 325 ; Woodbury v. City of Anoka, 52 Minn. 329 , , and Newton v. Minneapolis St.
Hillius v. Nelson Hotel Co. Inc. 247 N.W. 385 Minn. 1933
Hillius v. Nelson Hotel Co. Inc. 247 N.W. 385 Minn. 1933
R. 680; Koehler v. Cleary, 23 Minn. 325 ; Rush v. St.
Newton v. Minneapolis Street Railway Co. 243 N.W. 684 Minn. 1932
Newton v. Minneapolis Street Railway Co. 243 N.W. 684 Minn. 1932
It is sufficient to cite Koehler v. Cleary, 23 Minn. 325 ; Aldrich v. Wetmore, 52 Minn. 164 , ; Woodbury v. City of Anoka, 52 Minn. 329 , ; Rush v. St.
Nelson v. Kuhfeld 197 N.W. 253 Minn. 1924
State v. Snow 153 N.W. 526 Minn. 1915
State v. Snow 153 N.W. 526 Minn. 1915
Koehler v. Cleary, 23 Minn. 325 ; Helmbrecht v. Helmbrecht, 31 Minn. 504 , Woodbury v. City of Anoka, 52 Minn. 329 , .
Thoreson v. Quinn 147 N.W. 716 Minn. 1914
Thoreson v. Quinn 147 N.W. 716 Minn. 1914
Koehler v. Cleary, 23 Minn. 325 ; Aldrich v. Wetmore, 52 Minn. 164, 172 , ; Woodbury v. City of Anoka, 52 Minn. 329 , ; Rush v. St.
Akin v. Lake Superior Consolidated Iron Mines 114 N.W. 654 Minn. 1908
Akin v. Lake Superior Consolidated Iron Mines 114 N.W. 654 Minn. 1908
Hayward v. Knapp, 22 Minn. 5 ; Koehler v. Cleary, 23 Minn. 325 ; Woodbury v. City of Anoka, 52 Minn. 329 , ; Rush v. St.
Pierce v. Brennan 86 N.W. 417 Minn. 1901
Pierce v. Brennan 86 N.W. 417 Minn. 1901
Koehler v. Cleary, 23 Minn. 325 ; Aldrich v. Wetmore, 52 Minn. 164 , ; Woodbury v. City of Anoka, 52 Minn. 329 , ; Rush v. St.
Twaddle v. Mendenhall 83 N.W. 135 Minn. 1900
Twaddle v. Mendenhall 83 N.W. 135 Minn. 1900
As was *180 said in Koehler v. Cleary, 23 Minn. 325 , an actual visit to the premises might have an entirely different effect from that of a diagram or map.
Rush v. St. Paul City Railway Co. 72 N.W. 733 Minn. 1897
Rush v. St. Paul City Railway Co. 72 N.W. 733 Minn. 1897
Koehler v. Cleary, 23 Minn. 325 ; Aldrich v. Wetmore, 52 Minn. 164 , ; Woodbury v. City, 52 Minn. 329 , .
Svenson v. Chicago Great Western Railway Co. 70 N.W. 795 Minn. 1897
Svenson v. Chicago Great Western Railway Co. 70 N.W. 795 Minn. 1897
Koehler v. Cleary, 23 Minn. 325 ; Oswald v. Minneapolis, 29 Minn. 5 , ; Woodbury v.City, 52 Minn. 329 , 54 N.W.
Woodbury v. City of Anoka 54 N.W. 187 Minn. 1893
Woodbury v. City of Anoka 54 N.W. 187 Minn. 1893
Misconduct of jurors as a reason for setting aside the verdict was fully considered in Koehler v. Cleary, 23 Minn. 325 , and the rule stated that “if it does not appear that the misconduct was occasioned by the prevailing party, or any one in his behalf, and if it does not indicate any improper bias in the jurors’ minds, and the court cannot see that it either had or might have had an effect unfavorable to the party moving for a new t
Oswald v. Minneapolis & Northwestern Railway Co. 11 N.W. 112 Minn. 1881
Oswald v. Minneapolis & Northwestern Railway Co. 11 N.W. 112 Minn. 1881
mers v. Whittemore, 22 Minn. 305 , this court laid down the rule that “where an unauthorized communication is made to a juror in a cause on trial, which may have influenced his mind in favor of the successful party, a new trial will be granted for that reason; but if it is apparent that the communication could not have had such influence, it is no ground for a new trial.” And in Koehler v. Cleary 23 Minn. 325 , “the proper rule in such cases we deem to be, that if it does not appear that the mis