Pomani Ex Rel. Pomani v. Underwood (1985)

green · 8 citation events across 1 courts. Showing the 6 strongest citers on record (one row per citing case, strongest signal kept).

All Green 6

Sort: By significance · Most recent

green Tuckner v. Chouinard (1987)

Rule Authority · Minn. Ct. App.

Pomani v. Underwood, 365 N.W.2d 286, 289 (Minn.Ct.App.1985).

green Tews v. Husqvarna, Inc. (1986)

Rule Authority · Minn. Ct. App.

See Zimmerman v. Witte Transportation Co., 259 N.W.2d 260, 262 (Minn.1977); Pomani by Pomani v. Underwood, 365 N.W.2d 286, 290 (Minn.Ct.App.1985). 3.

green State v. Banks (1985)

Rule Authority · Minn. Ct. App.

In Pomani v. Underwood, 365 N.W.2d 286, 290 (Minn.Ct.App.1985), a civil case, this court discussed the necessity of holding a Schwartz hearing: If a party fails to request a Schwartz hearing after becoming aware of facts indicating potential misconduct, the issue will not be considered in a motion for a new trial or, therefore, on appeal.

green Boschee v. Duevel (1995)

Cited · Minn. Ct. App. · signal: see · 2 citations in this opinion

See Pomani v. Underwood, 365 N.W.2d 286, 289-90 (Minn.App.1985) (quoting Lamb v. Jordan, 333 N.W.2d 852, 856 (Minn.1983)).

green Miley v. Grabill (1986)

Cited · Minn. Ct. App. · signal: see

See Pomani v. Underwood, 365 N.W.2d 286, 290 (Minn.Ct.App. 1985).

green State v. Jurek (1985)

Cited (see also) · Minn. Ct. App. · signal: compare

Werner Co., Inc., 316 N.W.2d 517 (Minn.1982); State v. Hill, 287 N.W.2d 918 (Minn.1979); compare Pomani by Pomani v. Underwood, 365 N.W.2d 286 (Minn.Ct.App.1985) (witness’ prejudicial conduct not considered when counsel fails to request Schwartz hearing).