DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Litman v. Walso, 1 N.W.2d 391.

30 citing documents.

  • Wilson v. Siegfried 236 N.W.2d 787 Minn. 1975
  • Wilson v. Siegfried 236 N.W.2d 787 Minn. 1975
    Backman v. Fitch, supra; Litman v. Walso, 211 Minn. 398
  • Haavig v. Hidding 214 N.W.2d 222 Minn. 1974
  • Haavig v. Hidding 214 N.W.2d 222 Minn. 1974
    We have frequently held that “the question of whether a verdict is adequate is addressed in the first instance to the sound discretion of the trial court, and its action will not be reversed on appeal except for a clear abuse of discretion.” Smith v. Rekucki, 287 Minn. 149, 156 , Berg v. Ullevig, 244 Minn. 390 , Litman v. Walso, 211 Minn. 398 , Mohr v. Williams, 95 Minn. 261
  • Smith v. Rekucki 177 N.W.2d 410 Minn. 1970
  • Smith v. Rekucki 177 N.W.2d 410 Minn. 1970
    Mohr v. Williams, 95 Minn. 261 , , 1 L. R. A. (N. S.) *157 439; Litman v. Walso, 211 Minn. 398 , 1 N. W. (2d) 391 ; Berg v. Ullevig, 244 Minn. 390 , 70 N. W. (2d) 133 .
  • Backman v. Fitch 137 N.W.2d 574 Minn. 1965
  • Backman v. Fitch 137 N.W.2d 574 Minn. 1965
    As pointed out in the case of Litman v. Walso, 211 Minn. 398 , 1 N. W. (2d) 391 , this court will not interfere with a verdict in such cases unless the damages awarded clearly appear to be excessive or inadequate and to have been given under the influence of passion or prejudice.
  • Purdes v. Merrill 128 N.W.2d 164 Minn. 1964
  • Purdes v. Merrill 128 N.W.2d 164 Minn. 1964
    Litman v. Walso, 211 Minn. 398 , 1 N. W. (2d) 391 ; Becker v. Northland Transp.
  • Krueger v. Knutson 111 N.W.2d 526 Minn. 1961
  • Krueger v. Knutson 111 N.W.2d 526 Minn. 1961
    (3 ed.) § 7133; Mohr v. Williams, 95 Minn. 261 , , 1 L. R. A. (N. S.) 439; Litman v. Walso, 211 Minn. 398 , 1 N. W. (2d) 391 .
  • Seydel v. Reuber 94 N.W.2d 265 Minn. 1959
  • Seydel v. Reuber 94 N.W.2d 265 Minn. 1959
    See, Bartl v. City of New Ulm, 245 Minn. 148 , 72 N. W. (2d) 303 ; Berg v. Ullevig, 244 Minn. 390 , 70 N. W. (2d) 133 ; Maas v. Midway Chevrolet Co. 219 Minn. 461 , 18 N. W. (2d) 233 , 158 A. L. R. 215; Litman v. Walso, 211 Minn. 398 , 1 N. W. (2d) 391 ; Krueger v. Henschke, supra; Flaugh v. Egan Chevrolet, Inc. supra; Wright v. Engelbert, 193 Minn. 509 , ; Leipert v. Honold, 39 Cal.
  • Fenton v. Minneapolis Street Railway Co. 89 N.W.2d 404 Minn. 1958
  • Fenton v. Minneapolis Street Railway Co. 89 N.W.2d 404 Minn. 1958
    12 Litman v. Walso, 211 Minn. 398, 402 , 1 N. W. (2d) 391, 393 ; Maas v. Midway Chevrolet Co. 219 Minn. 461 , 18 N. W. (2d) 233 , 158 A. L. R. 215; 14 Dunnell, Dig.
  • Berg v. Ullevig 70 N.W.2d 133 Minn. 1955
  • Berg v. Ullevig 70 N.W.2d 133 Minn. 1955
    As pointed out in the case of Litman v. Walso, 211 Minn. 398 , 1 N. W. (2d) 391 , this court will not interfere with a verdict in such cases unless the damages awarded clearly appear to be excessive or inadequate and to have been given under the influence of passion or prejudice.
  • Hurr v. Johnston 65 N.W.2d 193 Minn. 1954
  • Hurr v. Johnston 65 N.W.2d 193 Minn. 1954
    Maas v. Midway Chevrolet Co. 219 Minn. 461 , 18 N. W. (2d) 233 , 158 A. L. R. 215; Litman v. Walso, 211 Minn. 398 , 1 N. W. (2d) 391 ; Krueger v. Henschke, 210 Minn. 307 , ; Flaugh v. Egan Chevrolet, Inc. 202 Minn. 615 , ; Wright v. Engelbert, 193 Minn. 509 , ; Leipert v. Honold, 39 Cal.
  • Brannan v. Shertzer 64 N.W.2d 755 Minn. 1954
  • Brannan v. Shertzer 64 N.W.2d 755 Minn. 1954
    As pointed out in the case of Litman v. Walso, 211 Minn. 398 , 1 N. W. (2d) 391 , this court will not interfere with a verdict in such cases *288 unless the damages awarded clearly appear to be excessive or inadequate and to have been given under the influence of passion or prejudice.
  • Olson v. Christiansen 41 N.W.2d 248 Minn. 1950
  • Olson v. Christiansen 41 N.W.2d 248 Minn. 1950
    *201 Although the grant or refusal of a new trial for inadequate damages rests largely with the trial court, whose decision thereon is subject to the general rule applicable to other discretionary orders for purposes of review (Litman v. Walso, 211 Minn. 398 , 1 N. W. [2d] 391), a new trial will be ordered by the appellate court where upon the record the damages awarded appear entirely inadequate.
  • Maas v. Midway Chevrolet Co. 18 N.W.2d 233 Minn. 1945
  • Maas v. Midway Chevrolet Co. 18 N.W.2d 233 Minn. 1945
    303 (and quoted with approval in Litman v. Walso, 211 Minn. 398, 402 , 1 N. W. [2d] 391, 393), the general rule is that: “* * * in any case, whether a new trial upon the ground of excessive or inadequate damages should be granted or refused, or whether the verdict should be reduced, rests in the sound judicial discretion of the trial court (Craig v. Cook, 28 Minn. 232
  • Flitton v. Daleki 13 N.W.2d 477 Minn. 1944
  • Flitton v. Daleki 13 N.W.2d 477 Minn. 1944
    This court so held in Litman v. Walso, 211 Minn. 398, 401 , 1 N. W. (2d) 391, 392 , where we stated: “The statute, applied to the semaphore in this case, required defendant to stop when the light showed yellow under the green ‘Go’ sign.
  • Schmitt v. Emery 2 N.W.2d 413 Minn. 1942
  • Schmitt v. Emery 2 N.W.2d 413 Minn. 1942
    Litman v. Walso, 211 Minn. 398 , 1 N. W. (2d) 391 ; Becker v. Northland Transp.