DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Larson v. Degner, 78 N.W.2d 333.

31 citing documents.

  • A20-1587 Minn. Ct. App. 2021
    H 7 review dismissed (Minn. Aug.
  • A19-1654 Minn. Ct. App. 2020
    17, 1999); see also, e.g. , Thielbar v. J uenke, (concluding that failure to object to special verdict constitutes waiver of any objection a party may have to verdict form); (holding that, by failing to propose addi tional questions for submission, party waived right to jury trial on issues not submitted to jury on special verdict).
  • State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
    See, e.g. , Larson v. Degner , (raising issues for appeal in a reply brief is “not proper practice and is not to be permitted”); (declining to consider an issue raised for the first time in a reply brief).
  • Moorhead Economic Development Authority v. Anda 789 N.W.2d 860 Minn. 2010
  • Moorhead Economic Development Authority v. Anda 789 N.W.2d 860 Minn. 2010
    We have stated that raising issues for appeal in one’s reply brief is “not proper practice and is not to be permitted.” See Larson v. Degner, 248 Minn. 59, 63
  • Kaiser-Bauer v. Mullan 609 N.W.2d 905 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
  • Kaiser-Bauer v. Mullan 609 N.W.2d 905 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
    P. 49; Thielbar v, Juenke, 291 Minn. 129, 136 , (suggesting failure to object to form of special verdict constitutes waiver of any objection party may have to form of verdict); Larson v. Degner, 248 Minn. 59, 65-66 , (holding that, by failing to propose additional questions for submission, party waived right to jury trial on issues not submitted to jury on special verdict).
  • Seidl v. Trollhaugen, Inc. 232 N.W.2d 236 Minn. 1975
  • Seidl v. Trollhaugen, Inc. 232 N.W.2d 236 Minn. 1975
    Larson v. Degner, 248 Minn. 59 , Wormsbecker v. Donovan Const. Co. 247 Minn. 32
  • LaSalle Cartage Co. v. Johnson Bros. Wholesale Liquor Co. 225 N.W.2d 233 Minn. 1974
  • LaSalle Cartage Co. v. Johnson Bros. Wholesale Liquor Co. 225 N.W.2d 233 Minn. 1974
    See, Larson v. Degner, 248 Minn. 59
  • Thielbar v. Juenke 189 N.W.2d 493 Minn. 1971
  • Thielbar v. Juenke 189 N.W.2d 493 Minn. 1971
    Hill v. Wilmington Chemical Corp. 279 Minn. 336 , 156 N. W. (2d) 898 ; Mikes v. Baumgartner, 277 Minn. 423 , 152 N. W. (2d) 732 ; Whelan v. Gould, 259 Minn. 203 , 106 N. W. (2d) 893 ; Larson v. Degner, 248 Minn. 59 , 78 N. W. (2d) 333 ; see, also, 2 Hetland & Adamson, Minnesota Practice, Civil Eules Ann., p. 288.
  • Stroesser v. Hopper 129 N.W.2d 913 Minn. 1964
  • Stroesser v. Hopper 129 N.W.2d 913 Minn. 1964
    5 Romano v. Dibbs, 256 Minn. 332, 335 , 98 N. W. (2d) 146, 148 ; Larson v. Degner, 248 Minn. 59, 67 , 78 N. W. (2d) 333, 339 .
  • McCormick v. Malecha 122 N.W.2d 446 Minn. 1963
  • McCormick v. Malecha 122 N.W.2d 446 Minn. 1963
    Cameron v. Evans, 241 Minn. 200 , 62 N. W. (2d) 793 ; Larson v. Degner, 248 Minn. 59 , 78 N. W. (2d) 333 .
  • Mester v. Fritze 121 N.W.2d 335 Minn. 1963
  • Mester v. Fritze 121 N.W.2d 335 Minn. 1963
    Larson v. Degner, 248 Minn. 59, 67 , 78 N. W. (2d) 333, 339 ; Cameron v. Evans, 241 Minn. 200 , 62 N. W. (2d) 793 .
  • Frain v. City of St. Paul 112 N.W.2d 795 Minn. 1962
  • Frain v. City of St. Paul 112 N.W.2d 795 Minn. 1962
    Linneman v. Swartz, 235 Minn. 107 , 50 N. W. (2d) 47 ; Larson v. Degner, 248 Minn. 59 , 78 N. W. (2d) 333 ; Kuhlmann v. Educational Publishers, Inc. 245 Minn. 171 , 71 N. W. (2d) 889 .
  • Krueger v. Knutson 111 N.W.2d 526 Minn. 1961
  • Krueger v. Knutson 111 N.W.2d 526 Minn. 1961
    In Larson v. Degner, 248 Minn. 59, 67 , 78 N. W. (2d) 333, 339 , we said: “* * * an appellate court should not revise the amount of a verdict unless it shocks its sense of justice and the impropriety of allowing the verdict to stand is so manifest as to show a clear abuse of discretion.
  • State v. Pearson 110 N.W.2d 206 Minn. 1961
  • State v. Pearson 110 N.W.2d 206 Minn. 1961
    In Larson v. Degner, 248 Minn. 59, 63 , 78 N. W. (2d) 333, 336 , this court stated: “In his alternative motion in the lower court for judgment notwithstanding the verdict or a new trial, Degner .set forth six grounds of error.
  • Romano v. Dibbs 98 N.W.2d 146 Minn. 1959
  • Romano v. Dibbs 98 N.W.2d 146 Minn. 1959
    Larson v. Degner, 248 Minn. 59 , 78 N. W. (2d) 333 ; Riley v. Luedloff, 253 Minn. 447 , 92 N. W. (2d) 806 ; Gilbertson v. Gross, 232 Minn. 373 , 45 N. W. (2d) 547 ; Northern States Power Co. v. Barnard, 187 Minn. 353 , ; 15 Am.
  • Zaikaner v. Small 98 N.W.2d 247 Minn. 1959
  • Zaikaner v. Small 98 N.W.2d 247 Minn. 1959
    1 See, Riley v. Luedloff, 253 Minn. 447 , 92 N. W. (2d) 806 ; Larson v. Degner, 248 Minn. 59 , 78 N. W. (2d) 333 ; Cameron v. Evans, 241 Minn. 200 , 62 N. W. (2d) 793 ; 14 Dunnell, Dig.
  • Riley v. Luedloff 92 N.W.2d 806 Minn. 1958
  • Riley v. Luedloff 92 N.W.2d 806 Minn. 1958
    Larson v. Degner, 248 Minn. 59 , 78 N. W. (2d) 333 .