Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
10 Minnesota opinions name it 2 courts 1911–2019 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Minnesota courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Otte v. Cooks, Inc.green2 sentences2019"Whether a particular claim is barred by an order of discharge or survives under the provisions of [the bankruptcy code], is not a matter with the exclusive jurisdiction of the Bankruptcy Court but may be decided by any court having jurisdiction of the subject matter of the claim and of the parties." Otte v. Cooks, Inc. , 113 F.Supp. 861 , 862 (D. 2015Whether a claim against a bankrupt person or entity is within the bankruptcy court’s exclusive jurisdiction is not solely for the bankruptcy court to decide, “but may be decided by any court having jurisdiction of the subject matter of the claim and of the parties.” Otte v. Cooks, Inc., 113 F. Supp. 861, 862 (D. | 2 | 3 |
Wyatt v. Wyettgreen2 sentences1947It is the rule however that the testimony of experts should not be received when the facts are such that, when placed before the jury and explained to them, they are as competent as the experts to form an opinion.” And in Westereng v. City of Morris, 205 Minn. 219, 222 , 285 N. W. 717, 719 , we stated: “The opinions of experts are admitted ‘in order to assist a jury [or other trier of facts] in arriving at the truth, and such evidence is admissible whenever the subject matter of the inquiry is such that inexperienced persons are unlikely to prove capable of forming a correct judgment upon it w 1947It is the rule however that the testimony of experts should not be received when the facts are such that, when placed before the jury and explained to them, they are as competent as the experts to form an opinion.” And in Westereng v. City of Morris, 205 Minn. 219, 222 , 285 N. W. 717, 719 , we stated: “The opinions of experts are admitted ‘in order to assist a jury [or other trier of facts] in arriving at the truth, and such evidence is admissible whenever the subject matter of the inquiry is such that inexperienced persons are unlikely to prove capable of forming a correct judgment upon it w | 1 | 3 |
Harrison v. Donnellygreen1 sentence1987Harrison v. Donnelly, 153 F.2d 588, 590 (8th Cir.1946), quoted in Poolman v. Poolman, 289 F.2d 332, 334 (8th Cir.1961). | 1 | 1 |
Kathleen Poolman v. William F. Poolman, Bankruptgreen1 sentence1987Harrison v. Donnelly, 153 F.2d 588, 590 (8th Cir.1946), quoted in Poolman v. Poolman, 289 F.2d 332, 334 (8th Cir.1961). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Minnesota. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Bernard M. Decker, United States District Judge v. Harper & Row Publishers, Inc.
green
2 sentences1981In the instant case, it is clear that the switching crew members are not within the “control group.” A second test, “the subject matter test,” was advanced in Harper & Row Publishers, Inc. v. Decker, 423 F.2d 487 (7th Cir. 1970), aff’d per curiam by an equally divided court, 400 U.S. 348 , 91 S.Ct. 479 , 27 L.Ed.2d 433 (1971). 1981In the instant case, it is clear that the switching crew members are not within the “control group.” A second test, “the subject matter test,” was advanced in Harper & Row Publishers, Inc. v. Decker, 423 F.2d 487 (7th Cir. 1970), aff’d per curiam by an equally divided court, 400 U.S. 348 , 91 S.Ct. 479 , 27 L.Ed.2d 433 (1971). | 1 | 1981–1981 |
Harper & Row Publishers, Inc. v. Honorable Bernard M. Decker, United States District Judge
green
2 sentences1981In the instant case, it is clear that the switching crew members are not within the "control group." A second test, "the subject matter test," was advanced in Harper & Row Publishers, Inc. v. Decker, 423 F.2d 487 (7th Cir. 1970), aff'd per curiam by an equally divided court, 400 U.S. 348 , 91 S.Ct. 479 , 27 L.Ed.2d 433 (1971). 1981In the instant case, it is clear that the switching crew members are not within the “control group.” A second test, “the subject matter test,” was advanced in Harper & Row Publishers, Inc. v. Decker, 423 F.2d 487 (7th Cir. 1970), aff’d per curiam by an equally divided court, 400 U.S. 348 , 91 S.Ct. 479 , 27 L.Ed.2d 433 (1971). | 1 | 1981–1981 |
Upjohn Co. v. United States
green
2 sentences1981See Note, Attorney-Client Privilege in Corporate Clients; The Control Group Test, 84 Harv.L.Rev. 424, 432 (1970). [8] Recently, in Upjohn Co. v. United States, ___ U.S. ___, 101 S.Ct. 677 , 66 L.Ed.2d 584 (1981), the United States Supreme Court considered the scope of the attorney-client privilege in a corporate setting. 1981See Note, Attorney-Client Privilege in Corporate Clients; The Control Group Test, 84 Harv.L.Rev. 424, 432 (1970). [8] Recently, in Upjohn Co. v. United States, ___ U.S. ___, 101 S.Ct. 677 , 66 L.Ed.2d 584 (1981), the United States Supreme Court considered the scope of the attorney-client privilege in a corporate setting. | 1 | 1981–1981 |
Sneda v. Libera
neutral
2 sentences1947It is the rule however that the testimony of experts should not be received when the facts are such that, when placed before the jury and explained to them, they are as competent as the experts to form an opinion.” And in Westereng v. City of Morris, 205 Minn. 219, 222 , 285 N. W. 717, 719 , we stated: “The opinions of experts are admitted ‘in order to assist a jury [or other trier of facts] in arriving at the truth, and such evidence is admissible whenever the subject matter of the inquiry is such that inexperienced persons are unlikely to prove capable of forming a correct judgment upon it w 1947It is the rule however that the testimony of experts should not be received when the facts are such that, when placed before the jury and explained to them, they are as competent as the experts to form an opinion.” And in Westereng v. City of Morris, 205 Minn. 219, 222 , 285 N. W. 717, 719 , we stated: “The opinions of experts are admitted ‘in order to assist a jury [or other trier of facts] in arriving at the truth, and such evidence is admissible whenever the subject matter of the inquiry is such that inexperienced persons are unlikely to prove capable of forming a correct judgment upon it w | 1 | 1947–1947 |
Westereng v. City of Morris
neutral
2 sentences1947It is the rule however that the testimony of experts should not be received when the facts are such that, when placed before the jury and explained to them, they are as competent as the experts to form an opinion.” And in Westereng v. City of Morris, 205 Minn. 219, 222 , 285 N. W. 717, 719 , we stated: “The opinions of experts are admitted ‘in order to assist a jury [or other trier of facts] in arriving at the truth, and such evidence is admissible whenever the subject matter of the inquiry is such that inexperienced persons are unlikely to prove capable of forming a correct judgment upon it w 1947It is the rule however that the testimony of experts should not be received when the facts are such that, when placed before the jury and explained to them, they are as competent as the experts to form an opinion.” And in Westereng v. City of Morris, 205 Minn. 219, 222 , 285 N. W. 717, 719 , we stated: “The opinions of experts are admitted ‘in order to assist a jury [or other trier of facts] in arriving at the truth, and such evidence is admissible whenever the subject matter of the inquiry is such that inexperienced persons are unlikely to prove capable of forming a correct judgment upon it w | 1 | 1947–1947 |
Tracey v. City of Minneapolis
green
2 sentences1947Jur., Evidence, § 817, the rule is stated as follows: “The general rule is that opinions as to the cause of a particular occurrence or accident given by witnesses possessing peculiar skill or knowledge — that is, experts — are admissible where the subject matter is not one of common observation or knowledge, or, in other words, where witnesses because of peculiar knowledge are competent to reach an intelligent conclusion and inexperienced persons are likely to prove incapable of forming a correct judgment without skilled assistance. * * # * * “It is clear that an expert will not be permitted t 1947Jur., Evidence, § 817, the rule is stated as follows: “The general rule is that opinions as to the cause of a particular occurrence or accident given by witnesses possessing peculiar skill or knowledge — that is, experts — are admissible where the subject matter is not one of common observation or knowledge, or, in other words, where witnesses because of peculiar knowledge are competent to reach an intelligent conclusion and inexperienced persons are likely to prove incapable of forming a correct judgment without skilled assistance. * * # * * “It is clear that an expert will not be permitted t | 1 | 1947–1947 |
Abrams v. Underwriters at Lloyd's
neutral
2 sentences1933Abrams v. Underwriters at Lloyd’s, 170 Minn. 172 , 212 N. W. 189 ; Markham Shingle Co. v. Royal Ins. 1933Abrams v. Underwriters at Lloyd’s, 170 Minn. 172 , 212 N. W. 189 ; Markham Shingle Co. v. Royal Ins. | 1 | 1933–1933 |
Walker v. Patterson
green
2 sentences1928They rely upon the rule of Densmore Oil Co. v. Densmore, 64 Pa. 48 (followed here in Walker v. Patterson, 166 Minn. 215, 221 , 208 N. W. 3, 7 ) that in the organization of a partnership or association parties deal at arm’s length in a sale to the new concern of their own property, and “are not bound to disclose the profit which they may realize by the transaction.” , The subject matter of that rule, the only thing it secures to its beneficiaries and in respect to which it absolves them from the duty of disclosure, is the advantage or gain which may be made by them, in the organization of a par 1928They rely upon the rule of Densmore Oil Co. v. Densmore, 64 Pa. 48 (followed here in Walker v. Patterson, 166 Minn. 215, 221 , 208 N. W. 3, 7 ) that in the organization of a partnership or association parties deal at arm’s length in a sale to the new concern of their own property, and “are not bound to disclose the profit which they may realize by the transaction.” , The subject matter of that rule, the only thing it secures to its beneficiaries and in respect to which it absolves them from the duty of disclosure, is the advantage or gain which may be made by them, in the organization of a par | 1 | 1928–1928 |
Anderson v. Fielding
green
2 sentences1911Anderson v. Fielding, 92 Minn. 42 , 99 N. W. 357 , 104 Am. 1911Anderson v. Fielding, 92 Minn. 42 , 99 N. W. 357 , 104 Am. | 1 | 1911–1911 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.