Adrian v. Edstrom

9 Citing cases

  1. State v. Kraushaar

    470 N.W.2d 509 (Minn. 1991)   Cited 66 times
    Holding testimony from five-year-old victim was sufficient to sustain conviction

    The videotaped interview conducted by Dr. Levitt, in our view, was not a "deposition" within the meaning of the rule nor something "sufficiently akin" to a "deposition" to be precluded by the rule. Adrian v. Edstrom, 304 Minn. 52, 59, 229 N.W.2d 161, 166 (1975) (civil case holding that transparency containing figures which was projected on a screen for viewing by jury during trial and admitted in evidence was not a "deposition" under section 546.15, which provided that jury could take to jury room "all papers received in evidence except depositions," and, therefore, it was within trial court's discretion to send the transparency to jury room pursuant to the statute). The fact that the rule does not preclude the trial court from allowing the jury to take an exhibit to the jury room for deliberations does not mean that the trial court has unreviewable discretion to allow the jury to do so.

  2. Wheeldon v. Madison

    374 N.W.2d 367 (S.D. 1985)   Cited 36 times
    Holding "the right to know — to be informed — is a fundamental right personal to the patient and should not be subject to restriction by medical practices that may be at odds with the patient's informational needs"

    " Jensen v. Dikel, 244 Minn. 71, 79, 69 N.W.2d 108, 114 (1955) (citations omitted). See also Pakul v. Montgomery Ward Co., 282 Minn. 360, 166 N.W.2d 65 (1969); Adrian v. Edstrom, 304 Minn. 52, 229 N.W.2d 161 (1975); Larson v. Midland Cooperatives, Inc., 305 Minn. 256, 232 N.W.2d 810 (1975). We agree with the Minnesota Supreme Court's analysis of the Minnesota statute, and we hold that the trial court has wide discretion under SDCL 15-14-20 in overseeing the use of exhibits by the jury.

  3. Buck v. Dibble

    281 N.W.2d 724 (Minn. 1979)   Cited 2 times

    3. Defendants's final contention, that the award of $49,500 to plaintiff Dale Buck was excessive, is not persuasive. It was properly characterized by the trial court as liberal even taking into account the factor of inflation, but in our view the award has sufficient support in the evidence concerning this plaintiff's past and probable future pain, his permanent disability, the facts he can no longer do the work he had done and cannot participate in recreational activities he had formerly enjoyed, and in his life expectancy of 28 years. Cf. Adrian v. Edstrom, 304 Minn. 52, 229 N.W.2d 161 (1975). Affirmed.

  4. Kalpin v. Helgeson

    254 N.W.2d 378 (Minn. 1977)   Cited 7 times
    Granting new trial on issue of damages unless plaintiff would agree to remittitur

    It is fundamental that the question of whether a new trial should be granted either upon the grounds of excessive damages or prejudicial misconduct of counsel is committed almost entirely to the sound discretion of the trial judge, whose duty is to protect against such misconduct and to keep the jury's award within the bounds of reason, using the facts of each case to measure the amount of damages awarded. Adrian v. Edstrom, 304 Minn. 52, 229 N.W.2d 161 (1975); Cameron v. Evans, 241 Minn. 200, 62 N.W.2d 793 (1954); Bisbee v. Ruppert, 306 Minn. 39, 235 N.W.2d 364 (1975). In obedience to these responsibilities, the trial court found that, contrary to defendant's claims, plaintiffs' counsel did not commit prejudicial misconduct by deliberately attempting to inform the jury of the existence of insurance, condemned as prejudicial in Purdes v. Merrill, 268 Minn. 129, 128 N.W.2d 164 (1964).

  5. Olson v. State

    No. A04-2314 (Minn. Ct. App. Jan. 10, 2006)

    Appellant argues that this title is conclusory and prejudicial because it was for the jury to determine whether appellant diverted corporate funds. The admissibility of summarized evidence is a matter within the discretion of the district court and will not be reversed absent an abuse of that discretion. Adrian v. Edstrom, 304 Minn. 52, 60, 229 N.W.2d 161, 166 (1975). As a general rule, such charts are admitted in long, complicated cases where they accurately represent the proponent's testimony or theory and where the court determines that such would be an aid to the jury and instructs the jury to use the exhibit only as an aid and not as the evidence itself.

  6. Wilkus v. Haiar

    No. C1-01-460 (Minn. Ct. App. Dec. 4, 2001)

    The admissibility of summarized evidence is a matter within the discretion of the district court. Adrian v. Edstrom, 304 Minn. 52, 59-60, 229 N.W.2d 161, 166 (1975). Although the charts contain inconsistencies and may lack the precision and specificity to establish damage amounts in a new trial that will require more detailed calculations, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion when it allowed the summary charts into evidence.

  7. Radloff v. Jans

    428 N.W.2d 112 (Minn. Ct. App. 1988)   Cited 6 times
    Upholding award of less than proven damages when credible evidence supports jury's verdict of no liability on defendant's part

    In addition, a court should give "proper instructions" to the jury when it decides to withhold an exhibit from them. Adrian v. Edstrom, 304 Minn. 52, 59, 229 N.W.2d 161, 166 (1975). It does not appear that any instructions were given to the jury in this case.

  8. Hayes v. Northwood Panelboard Co.

    415 N.W.2d 687 (Minn. Ct. App. 1988)   Cited 34 times
    Holding that no fraud existed where party promised to perform an act in the future

    Hayes also argues that the trial court erred when it allowed Northwood's production graph into evidence, because Northwood laid no foundation for it. The admission of charts and summaries is a matter which rests within the trial court's discretion and will not be reversed by an appellate court unless this discretion is abused. Adrian v. Edstrom, 304 Minn. 52, 60, 229 N.W.2d 161, 166 (1975). Northwood introduced its production graph through Northwood's accounting supervisor.

  9. State v. Pawley

    123 Ariz. 387 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1979)   Cited 13 times
    In State v. Pawley, 123 Ariz. 387, 599 P.2d 840 (App. 1979), this court considered one written communication from judge to jury.

    This also appears to be the general rule in most jurisdictions. See Metcalf v. Waterbury, 60 Mich. App. 553, 231 N.W.2d 437 (1975); Adrian v. Edstrom, 304 Minn. 52, 229 N.W.2d 161 (1975) (for "good cause" the trial court can withhold an admitted exhibit from view by the jury); Martin v. Schoonover, 13 Wn. App. 48, 533 P.2d 438 (1975). While technically this rule is not applicable here as the offending exhibit was already in the jury's possession in the jury room, we believe the rationale of the rule is no less forceful because at the time of the jury's request, the contents had not yet been viewed.