Legal Opinion
Ingram v. Syverson
Court of Appeals of Minnesota
Decided February 3, 2004No. A03-967PublishedCited by 5 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
TOUSSAINT, Chief Judge.
On appeal in this personal-injury case, appellants Donna Ingram and James Ingram argue that the district court erred in determining that their expert testimony was not based on adequate factual foundation, and in granting summary judgment because appellants failed to show their theory of causation was more probable than that of respondents. Because a physician’s expert opinion may be reasonably based on information from multiple sources, including statements made to the physician by a patient, and because causation is an issue best suited for a jury, we reverse…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Fabio v. BellomoSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1993
- Offerdahl v. University of Minnesota Hospitals & ClinicsSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1988
- Wartnick v. Moss & BarnettSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1992
- Hiber v. City of St. PaulSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1944
- Paidar v. HughesSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2000
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- In re RFC & Rescap Liquidating Trust ActionDistrict Court, D. Maine · 2018
- Staffing Specifix, Inc. v. TempWorks Management Services, Inc.Court of Appeals of Minnesota · 2017
- Arneson v. Gr Management, LLCSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 2024
- Carl Anderson and Tammy Anderson v. United States of AmericaDistrict Court, D. Minnesota · 2025
- James Ariola as next of kin and trustee for Jack Ariola Erenberg, his son v. The City of Stillwater, Minnesota, Washington County, State of Minnesota Department of HealthCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 2014